Rulli v. Rulli
This text of 1998 Ohio 651 (Rulli v. Rulli) 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
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 81 Ohio St.3d 1223.]
RULLI, APPELLEE, v. RULLI ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Rulli v. Rulli, 1998-Ohio-651.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 97-565—Submitted December 2, 1997—Decided February 11, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 94 C.A. 134. ON MOTION TO DISMISS. __________________ Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman, L.P.A., and John F. Zimmerman, Jr., for appellee. Henderson, Covington, Messenger, Newman & Thomas Co., L.P.A., James L. Messenger and Jerry M. Bryan, for appellants. __________________ {¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1998 Ohio 651, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rulli-v-rulli-ohio-1998.