Sikora v. Wenzel

Ohio Supreme Court

Sikora v. Wenzel

716 N.E.2d 1168, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1407, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 3153

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1999

Docket99-1301

StatusPublished

This text of 716 N.E.2d 1168 (Sikora v. Wenzel) 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

Sikora v. Wenzel, 716 N.E.2d 1168, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1407, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 3153 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Greene App. No. 98CA130. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed June 30, 1999:

“In the absence of actual or constructive notice of a defect, may a landlord be held strictly liable under R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) for the violation of a specific statutory duty imposed for the physical safety of others?”

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 99-1323, Sikora v. Wenzel, Greene App. No. 98CA130.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

The conflict cases are Winton Properties v. Sanders (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 28, 565 N.E.2d 1280; Brady v. Koehnke (Sept. 7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930240, unreported, 1994 WL 481758; Lockhart v. Mayfield (Sept. 18, 1991), Summit App. No. 14990, unreported, 1991 WL 184833; Primes v. Milbry (Nov. 19, 1997), Summit App. No. 18236, unreported, 1997 WL 760698; and Rice v. Reid (Apr. 23, 1992), Crawford App. No. 3-91-34, unreported, 1992 WL 81424.

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

Greene App. No. 98CA130. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed June 30, 1999:

“In the absence of actual or constructive notice of a defect, may a landlord be held strictly liable under R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) for the violation of a specific statutory duty imposed for the physical safety of others?”

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 99-1323, Sikora v. Wenzel, Greene App. No. 98CA130.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

The conflict cases are Winton Properties v. Sanders (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 28, 565 N.E.2d 1280; Brady v. Koehnke (Sept. 7, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930240, unreported, 1994 WL 481758; Lockhart v. Mayfield (Sept. 18, 1991), Summit App. No. 14990, unreported, 1991 WL 184833; Primes v. Milbry (Nov. 19, 1997), Summit App. No. 18236, unreported, 1997 WL 760698; and Rice v. Reid (Apr. 23, 1992), Crawford App. No. 3-91-34, unreported, 1992 WL 81424.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

716 N.E.2d 1168, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1407, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sikora-v-wenzel-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack