Freeman v. Holzer Medical Center

Ohio Supreme Court

Freeman v. Holzer Medical Center

66 Ohio St. 3d 601

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 30, 1993·No. Nos. 92-1169 and 92-1005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The cause in case No. 92-1169 came before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in McCrory v. Children’s Hosp. (1986), 28 Ohio App.3d 49, 28 OBR 61, 501 N.E.2d 1238, upon the following question:

“ * * * [W]hether a party is provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues in the Court of Claims such that the rule requiring a mutuality of parties may be relaxed and [that appellee Joy L. Freeman] can be collaterally estopped from relitigating those issues in subsequent jury trials against different parties.”

Having examined McCrory and the record in the present cause, we find that the judgments do not conflict on the certified question. Accordingly, the [602]*602appeal is dismissed. State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 68, 514 N.E.2d 873; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 44, 523 N.E.2d 502; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 60, 526 N.E.2d 307; State v. Radar (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 112, 548 N.E.2d 210; State v. Parobek (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 61, 550 N.E.2d 476; Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032, paragraph one of the syllabus; and Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.

Finding no conflict on the certified question, we dismiss the appeal in case No. 92-1005 as having been improvidently allowed.

A.W. Sweeney, Acting C.J., Spellacy, Douglas, Weight, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Leo M. Spellacy, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Moyer, C.J.

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

The cause in case No. 92-1169 came before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in McCrory v. Children’s Hosp. (1986), 28 Ohio App.3d 49, 28 OBR 61, 501 N.E.2d 1238, upon the following question:

“ * * * [W]hether a party is provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues in the Court of Claims such that the rule requiring a mutuality of parties may be relaxed and [that appellee Joy L. Freeman] can be collaterally estopped from relitigating those issues in subsequent jury trials against different parties.”

Having examined McCrory and the record in the present cause, we find that the judgments do not conflict on the certified question. Accordingly, the [602]*602appeal is dismissed. State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 68, 514 N.E.2d 873; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 44, 523 N.E.2d 502; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 60, 526 N.E.2d 307; State v. Radar (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 112, 548 N.E.2d 210; State v. Parobek (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 61, 550 N.E.2d 476; Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032, paragraph one of the syllabus; and Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.

Finding no conflict on the certified question, we dismiss the appeal in case No. 92-1005 as having been improvidently allowed.

A.W. Sweeney, Acting C.J., Spellacy, Douglas, Weight, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Leo M. Spellacy, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Moyer, C.J.

Freeman v. Holzer Medical Center, 66 Ohio St. 3d 601 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

66 Ohio St. 3d 601 (Freeman v. Holzer Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related