Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Swaisgood v. Puder

Swaisgood v. Puder

889 N.E.2d 1018, 118 Ohio St. 3d 445
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 2, 2008
DocketNo. 2007-0442
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 889 N.E.2d 1018 (Swaisgood v. Puder) 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
Swaisgood v. Puder, 889 N.E.2d 1018, 118 Ohio St. 3d 445 (Ohio 2008).

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 118 Ohio St.3d 215, 2008-Ohio-2010, 887 N.E.2d 1158.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co.

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

Related

Snay v. Burr
2020 Ohio 3828 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
Swaisgood v. Puder
893 N.E.2d 519 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
889 N.E.2d 1018, 118 Ohio St. 3d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swaisgood-v-puder-ohio-2008.