Taylor v. Crosby

Ohio Supreme Court

Taylor v. Crosby

2016 Ohio 5820, 81 N.E.3d 1223, 150 Ohio St. 3d 344

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 2016

DocketNo. 2014-1886

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2016 Ohio 5820 (Taylor v. Crosby) 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

Taylor v. Crosby, 2016 Ohio 5820, 81 N.E.3d 1223, 150 Ohio St. 3d 344 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 149 Ohio St.3d 512, 2016-Ohio-5796, 76 N.E.3d 1089, and Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 149 Ohio St.3d 282, 2016-Ohio-5793, 74 N.E.3d 427, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a determination regarding compliance with the 2006 version of the Dormant Mineral Act.

O'Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

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 on the authority of Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 149 Ohio St.3d 512, 2016-Ohio-5796, 76 N.E.3d 1089, and Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 149 Ohio St.3d 282, 2016-Ohio-5793, 74 N.E.3d 427, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a determination regarding compliance with the 2006 version of the Dormant Mineral Act.

O'Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 Ohio 5820, 81 N.E.3d 1223, 150 Ohio St. 3d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-crosby-ohio-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack