Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
89 Ohio St. 3d 110
Opinions
The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.
The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they vacated the default judgments. The causes are remanded to the trial court with instructions to permit plaintiffs to serve the Attorney General in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 89 Ohio St. 3d 110 (Ohio 2000).
89 Ohio St. 3d 110 (Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sturgill v. Worcester, Unpublished Decision (5-1-2002)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2002
In Re Adoption of Coppersmith
761 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2001)
Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
736 N.E.2d 904 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2000 Ohio 229 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
89 Ohio St. 3d 523 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)