State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel Co.

855 N.E.2d 1202, 111 Ohio St. 3d 262

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 2006

DocketNo. 2005-2133

StatusPublished

This text of 855 N.E.2d 1202 (State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel 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.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel Co., 855 N.E.2d 1202, 111 Ohio St. 3d 262 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Butkovich, Crosthwaite & Gast Co., L.P.A., Daryl A.W. Crosthwaite, and Stephen P. Gast, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Derrick L. Knapp, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

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

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Butkovich, Crosthwaite & Gast Co., L.P.A., Daryl A.W. Crosthwaite, and Stephen P. Gast, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Derrick L. Knapp, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

855 N.E.2d 1202, 111 Ohio St. 3d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-englemon-v-queen-city-barrel-co-ohio-2006.