Howard v. Cunard Line Ltd.

Ohio Supreme Court

Howard v. Cunard Line Ltd.

524 N.E.2d 175, 37 Ohio St. 3d 134, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 178

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 8, 1988·No. No. 88-192·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The motion to certify the record is allowed. The judgment of the court of appeals dismissing appellant’s appeal as untimely filed is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal, on authority of Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 80, 523 N.E. 2d 851.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

The motion to certify the record is allowed. The judgment of the court of appeals dismissing appellant’s appeal as untimely filed is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal, on authority of Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 80, 523 N.E. 2d 851.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Howard v. Cunard Line Ltd., 524 N.E.2d 175, 37 Ohio St. 3d 134, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 178 (Ohio 1988).

Pincite

524 N.E.2d 175 (Howard v. Cunard Line Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related