Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories
This text of 8 N.E.3d 967 (Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories) 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.
Opinion
Franklin App. No. 11AP-996, 2013-Ohio-1675. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.
Upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of James F. Hurst, Derek J. Sarafa, Steffen N. Johnson, and Samantha Maxfield, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B)(1), which permits pro hac vice admission only on motion of the attorney seeking admission.
Counsel may file renewed motions for pro hac vice admission that comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B)(1) no later than 30 days from the date of this entry.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 N.E.3d 967, 138 Ohio St. 3d 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jelinek-v-abbott-laboratories-ohio-2014.