Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc.

708 N.E.2d 706, 85 Ohio St. 3d 361

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 28, 1999·No. No. 97-2491·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question to us:

“Is Section 2745.01 of the Ohio Revised Code unconstitutional under state law thereby rendering Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.11.2 null and void?”

The certified question is answered in the affirmative on the authority of Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 298, 707 N.E.2d 1107.

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

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

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question to us:

“Is Section 2745.01 of the Ohio Revised Code unconstitutional under state law thereby rendering Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.11.2 null and void?”

The certified question is answered in the affirmative on the authority of Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 298, 707 N.E.2d 1107.

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

Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc., 708 N.E.2d 706, 85 Ohio St. 3d 361 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

708 N.E.2d 706 (Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.