Federated Mgt. Co. v. Latham & Watkins

738 N.E.2d 384, 90 Ohio St. 3d 1474, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 2975

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Federated Mgt. Co. v. Latham & Watkins. Read the opinion of the Court — 90 Ohio St. 3d 1438 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 22, 2000·No. 00-1810·Published

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 99AP-1322. Reported at 90 Ohio St.3d 1438, 736 N.E.2d 901. On amended motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

On motion for admission pro hoc vice by Mark K. Merkle, Jr. for Alan R. Glickman. Motion granted.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Federated Mgt. Co. v. Latham & Watkins, 738 N.E.2d 384, 90 Ohio St. 3d 1474, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 2975 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

738 N.E.2d 384 (Federated Mgt. Co. v. Latham & Watkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.