Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Lee v. Cardington

Lee v. Cardington

999 N.E.2d 695, 137 Ohio St. 3d 1440
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 24, 2013
Docket2013-1400
StatusPublished

This text of 999 N.E.2d 695 (Lee v. Cardington) 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
Lee v. Cardington, 999 N.E.2d 695, 137 Ohio St. 3d 1440 (Ohio 2013).

Opinion

Morrow App. No. 12CA0017, 2013-Ohio-3108. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

Pfeifer, O’Donnell, and French, JJ., would also accept Proposition of Law No. II. O’Connor, C.J., and Lanzinger and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

Discretionary cross-appeal not accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer and French, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

Lee v. Cardington
2013 Ohio 3108 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
999 N.E.2d 695, 137 Ohio St. 3d 1440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-cardington-ohio-2013.