Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.

Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.

828 N.E.2d 115, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1559
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 25, 2005
Docket2005-0293
StatusPublished

This text of 828 N.E.2d 115 (Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 828 N.E.2d 115, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1559 (Ohio 2005).

Opinion

Cuyahoga App. No. 81782, 2004-Ohio-6922. Discretionary appeal accepted.

Resnick, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

On motion for admission pro hac vice of H. Christopher Bartolomucci by Kevin M. Young; motion for admission pro hac vice of John B. Haarlow, Michael P. Comiskey and Daniel S. Lambert by Dennis J. Bartek; motion for admission pro hac vice of Judith Fornie Helms by Holly Marie Wilson; motion for admission pro hac vice of Brian A. Frankl by David J. Fagnilli; motion for admission pro hac vice of William G. Passannante and Cathleen Cinella Tylis by Drew A. Carson; and motion for admission pro hac vice of Laura A. Foggan and John C. Yang by Stephen F. Gladstone. Motions granted.

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

Related

Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004)
2004 Ohio 6922 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
828 N.E.2d 115, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glidden-co-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-ohio-2005.