Pennsylvania Rd. v. Robinson-Ransbottom Pottery Co.
This text of 174 N.E. 2 (Pennsylvania Rd. v. Robinson-Ransbottom Pottery Co.) 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.
Opinions
After rehearing and on consideration thereof *Page 594 MARSHALL, C.J., and ROBINSON, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision; KINKADE, DAY and ALLEN, JJ., are of the opinion that the former judgment of reversal should be adhered to; JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed; there being no majority concurrence of reversal the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
174 N.E. 2, 122 Ohio St. 593, 122 Ohio St. (N.S.) 593, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 63, 1930 Ohio LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-rd-v-robinson-ransbottom-pottery-co-ohio-1930.