Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories

Ohio Supreme Court

Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories

8 N.E.3d 967, 138 Ohio St. 3d 1499

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 16, 2014·No. 2014-0481·Published

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

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.

Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories, 8 N.E.3d 967, 138 Ohio St. 3d 1499 (Ohio 2014).

Pincite

8 N.E.3d 967 (Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.