In re Maloney

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Maloney

96 Ohio St. 3d 307

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 16, 2002·No. No. 2001-1726·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

{¶ 1} Oral argument is cancelled.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of In re Bicknell, 96 Ohio St.3d 76, 2002-0hio-3615, 771 N.E.2d 846.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., would order the parties to show cause why this cause should not be decided on the authority of In re Bicknell. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

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

{¶ 1} Oral argument is cancelled.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of In re Bicknell, 96 Ohio St.3d 76, 2002-0hio-3615, 771 N.E.2d 846.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., would order the parties to show cause why this cause should not be decided on the authority of In re Bicknell. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

In re Maloney, 96 Ohio St. 3d 307 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

96 Ohio St. 3d 307 (In re Maloney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related