Heath v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York

Ohio Supreme Court

Heath v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York

792 N.E.2d 198, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1511

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 30, 2003

Docket2003-0794

StatusPublished

This text of 792 N.E.2d 198 (Heath v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York) 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

Heath v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York, 792 N.E.2d 198, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1511 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Summit App. No. 21221, 2003-0hio-1303. Discretionary appeal allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II and cause held for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502.

O’Donnell, J., concurs. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur but would also allow Propositions of Law Nos. Ill through VIII and hold for the decision in Galatis. O’Connor, J., concurs in part, would allow on Proposition of Law No. I only, and would hold the cause for the decision in 2002-1956, Tucker v. Wilson, Clermont App. No. CA2002-01-002, 2002-Ohio-5142. Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent. Discretionary cross-appeal denied. Moyer, C.J., concurs in part, would allow on Proposition of Law No. I, and would hold the cross-appeal for the decision in Tucker. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would allow the cross-appeal. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents, would allow the cross-appeal, and would hold the cross-appeal for the decision in Galatis.

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

Summit App. No. 21221, 2003-0hio-1303. Discretionary appeal allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II and cause held for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502.

O’Donnell, J., concurs. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur but would also allow Propositions of Law Nos. Ill through VIII and hold for the decision in Galatis. O’Connor, J., concurs in part, would allow on Proposition of Law No. I only, and would hold the cause for the decision in 2002-1956, Tucker v. Wilson, Clermont App. No. CA2002-01-002, 2002-Ohio-5142. Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent. Discretionary cross-appeal denied. Moyer, C.J., concurs in part, would allow on Proposition of Law No. I, and would hold the cross-appeal for the decision in Tucker. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would allow the cross-appeal. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents, would allow the cross-appeal, and would hold the cross-appeal for the decision in Galatis.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 N.E.2d 198, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-fid-cas-co-of-new-york-ohio-2003.