Gum v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Gum v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

691 N.E.2d 292, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1243

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 1, 1998

DocketNo. 97-654

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 691 N.E.2d 292 (Gum v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating 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

Gum v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 691 N.E.2d 292, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1243 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

The court orders that the court of appeals’ opinion not be published in the Ohio Official Reports, and that it may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, T. Bryant and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent. Thomas F. Bryant, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J.

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

This cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

The court orders that the court of appeals’ opinion not be published in the Ohio Official Reports, and that it may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, T. Bryant and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent. Thomas F. Bryant, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 N.E.2d 292, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gum-v-cleveland-electric-illuminating-co-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack