Johnson v. Rhodes

Ohio Supreme Court

Johnson v. Rhodes

721 N.E.2d 122, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 3888

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1999

Docket99-1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 721 N.E.2d 122 (Johnson v. Rhodes) 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.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Rhodes, 721 N.E.2d 122, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 3888 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Washington App. No. 98CA26. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed October 5,1999, at page 3:

“Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(A), this court determines that a conflict exists between the districts on these issues: (1) whether Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.15 as construed in Wetzel v. Weyant (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 135 [70 O.O.2d 227, 323 N.E.2d 711], is unconstitutional for the reason that it constitutes a burden on interstate commerce under the holding in Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc. (1988), 486 U.S. 888, 108 S.Ct. 2218 [100 L.Ed.2d 896]; and (2) whether the statute of limitations under Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.15 is tolled when a person is temporarily out of the State of Ohio for other than business reasons.”

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 99-1652, Johnson v. Rhodes, Washington App. No. 98CA26.

The conflict cases are Brown v. Lavery (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 745, 622 N.E.2d 1179; Gehr v. Elden (July 8, 1992), Lorain App. No. 91CA005192, unreported, 1992 WL 161393; and Hoagland v. Webb (June 3, 1994), Montgomery App. Nos. 14024 and 14061, unreported, 1994 WL 237504.

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

Washington App. No. 98CA26. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed October 5,1999, at page 3:

“Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(A), this court determines that a conflict exists between the districts on these issues: (1) whether Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.15 as construed in Wetzel v. Weyant (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 135 [70 O.O.2d 227, 323 N.E.2d 711], is unconstitutional for the reason that it constitutes a burden on interstate commerce under the holding in Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc. (1988), 486 U.S. 888, 108 S.Ct. 2218 [100 L.Ed.2d 896]; and (2) whether the statute of limitations under Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.15 is tolled when a person is temporarily out of the State of Ohio for other than business reasons.”

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 99-1652, Johnson v. Rhodes, Washington App. No. 98CA26.

The conflict cases are Brown v. Lavery (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 745, 622 N.E.2d 1179; Gehr v. Elden (July 8, 1992), Lorain App. No. 91CA005192, unreported, 1992 WL 161393; and Hoagland v. Webb (June 3, 1994), Montgomery App. Nos. 14024 and 14061, unreported, 1994 WL 237504.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 N.E.2d 122, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 3888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-rhodes-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack