In re Guardianship of Rudy

601 N.E.2d 501, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1450, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 4248

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Guardianship of Rudy. Read the opinion of the Court — 65 Ohio St. 3d 394 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 9, 1992·No. 91-2112·Published

Opinion

Trumbull County, Nos. 90-T-4398 and 90-T-4416. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County. Upon consideration of appellee David W. Rudy’s motion to dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, denied.

Moyer, C.J., and H. Brown, J., would defer ruling upon the motion until after oral argument. Sweeney and Holmes, JJ., dissent.

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

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, denied.

Moyer, C.J., and H. Brown, J., would defer ruling upon the motion until after oral argument. Sweeney and Holmes, JJ., dissent.

In re Guardianship of Rudy, 601 N.E.2d 501, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1450, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 4248 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

601 N.E.2d 501 (In re Guardianship of Rudy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.