Snyder v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Snyder v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

667 N.E.2d 359, 76 Ohio St. 3d 230

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 7, 1996·No. No. 96-73·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

As to Proposition of Law No. 1, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Cole v. Holland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 220, 667 N.E.2d 353.

As to Proposition of Law No. 2, the appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent on Proposition of Law No. 1 and concur on Proposition of Law No. 2. Stratton, J., not participating.

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

As to Proposition of Law No. 1, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Cole v. Holland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 220, 667 N.E.2d 353.

As to Proposition of Law No. 2, the appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent on Proposition of Law No. 1 and concur on Proposition of Law No. 2. Stratton, J., not participating.

Snyder v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 667 N.E.2d 359, 76 Ohio St. 3d 230 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

667 N.E.2d 359 (Snyder v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related