Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc.

1999 Ohio 384, 85 Ohio St. 3d 361

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 28, 1999

Docket1997-2491

StatusPublished

This text of 1999 Ohio 384 (Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc.) 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

Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc., 1999 Ohio 384, 85 Ohio St. 3d 361 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 85 Ohio St.3d 361.]

MULLINS ET AL. v. RIO ALGOM, INC. ET AL. [Cite as Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc., 1999-Ohio-384.] Employer and employee—Cause of action brought by employee alleging intentional tort by employer in workplace—R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional in its entirety. (No. 97-2491—Submitted March 31, 1999—Decided April 28, 1999.) ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. C-1-97-73. __________________ Casper & Casper and Arthur B. Casper, for petitioners Mark Mullins et al. Lindhorst & Dreidame, William M. Cussen and Brian M. Kneafsey, Jr., for respondents Rio Algom, Inc. et al. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Arthur J. Marziale, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for intervenor-respondent Ohio Attorney General. Michael R. Thomas, in support of petitioners, for amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, in support of petitioners, for amicus curiae Ohio AFL-CIO. Manley, Burke, Lipton & Cook and Andrew S. Lipton, in support of petitioners, for amicus curiae Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc. __________________ {¶ 1} 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?” SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} 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. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 298, 707 N.E.2d 1107. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 85 Ohio St.3d 361.]

MULLINS ET AL. v. RIO ALGOM, INC. ET AL. [Cite as Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc., 1999-Ohio-384.] Employer and employee—Cause of action brought by employee alleging intentional tort by employer in workplace—R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional in its entirety. (No. 97-2491—Submitted March 31, 1999—Decided April 28, 1999.) ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. C-1-97-73. __________________ Casper & Casper and Arthur B. Casper, for petitioners Mark Mullins et al. Lindhorst & Dreidame, William M. Cussen and Brian M. Kneafsey, Jr., for respondents Rio Algom, Inc. et al. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Arthur J. Marziale, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for intervenor-respondent Ohio Attorney General. Michael R. Thomas, in support of petitioners, for amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, in support of petitioners, for amicus curiae Ohio AFL-CIO. Manley, Burke, Lipton & Cook and Andrew S. Lipton, in support of petitioners, for amicus curiae Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc. __________________ {¶ 1} 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?” SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} 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. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 298, 707 N.E.2d 1107. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Ohio 384, 85 Ohio St. 3d 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-rio-algom-inc-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack