State ex rel. Shandrow v. Roper Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Shandrow v. Roper Corp.

803 N.E.2d 799, 101 Ohio St. 3d 194

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 3, 2004

DocketNo. 2003-0829

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 803 N.E.2d 799 (State ex rel. Shandrow v. Roper Corp.) 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. Shandrow v. Roper Corp., 803 N.E.2d 799, 101 Ohio St. 3d 194 (Ohio 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Stephen E. Mindzak Law Offices, L.L.C., and Stephen E. Mindzak, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Phil Wright Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent, would reverse, and would order relief pursuant to State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

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., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Stephen E. Mindzak Law Offices, L.L.C., and Stephen E. Mindzak, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Phil Wright Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent, would reverse, and would order relief pursuant to State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

803 N.E.2d 799, 101 Ohio St. 3d 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-shandrow-v-roper-corp-ohio-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack