Havel v. Villa St. Joseph

940 N.E.2d 985, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1530
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 2, 2011·No. 2010-2148·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Cuyahoga App. No. 94677, 2010-Ohio-5251. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed November 22, 2010:

“Whether R.C. 2315.21(B), as amended by S.B. 80, effective April 7, 2005, is unconstitutional, in violation of Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, because it is a procedural law that conflicts with Civ.R. 42(B).”
Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is Hanners v. Ho Wah Gentling Wire & Cable, Franklin App. No. 09AP-361, 2009-Ohio-6481.

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

Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 940 N.E.2d 985, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1530 (Ohio 2011).

940 N.E.2d 985 (Havel v. Villa St. Joseph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fleenor v. Karr
2011 Ohio 5706 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Luri v. Republic Services, Inc.
2011 Ohio 2389 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)