Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

89 Ohio St. 3d 523
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 6, 2000·No. Nos. 98-2110 and 98-2481·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

On June 7, 2000, this court made the following entry in this case:

“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.” See 89 Ohio St.3d 110, 728 N.E.2d 1078.

The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition. The motion for reconsideration and clarification is granted.

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 rectify their failure to timely and properly serve the Attorney General by serving 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, and to permit defendants to file separate answers. The remainder of the judgments of the court of appeals will then be rendered moot.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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 523 (Ohio 2000).

89 Ohio St. 3d 523 (Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cincinnati v. Fourth Natl. Realty, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 6802 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2020)
In Re Adoption of Coppersmith
761 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2001)
Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2000 Ohio 229 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)