Nagel v. Huntington Natl. Bank
This text of 2009 Ohio 3451 (Nagel v. Huntington Natl. Bank) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as Nagel v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 122 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2009-Ohio-3451.]
NAGEL, APPELLEE, v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, APPELLANT. [Cite as Nagel v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 122 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2009-Ohio-3451.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted. (No. 2008-2501 — Submitted July 14, 2009 — Decided July 21, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 90662, 179 Ohio App.3d 126, 2008-Ohio-5741. __________________ {¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., and Patrick J. Perotti; and Brian G. Ruschel, for appellee. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Jennifer T. Mills, and L. Bradfield Hughes, for appellant. ______________________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 Ohio 3451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagel-v-huntington-natl-bank-ohio-2009.