Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.

947 N.E.2d 680, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1496
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.. Read the opinion of the Court — 130 Ohio St. 3d 411
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 24, 2011·No. 2010-1324·Published

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 09AP-949, 2010-Ohio-2731. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file an emergency motion for expedited pro [1497]*1497hac vice admission, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. The motion for pro hac vice admission of attorney Stanley J. Parzen, which is attached to the motion for leave, is deemed filed, and the motion for pro hac vice admission is granted.

Upon consideration of appellant’s emergency motion for continuation of oral argument, it is ordered that the motion is denied as moot, and oral argument shall proceed in this case on Wednesday, May 25, 2011.

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

Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 947 N.E.2d 680, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1496 (Ohio 2011).

947 N.E.2d 680 (Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.