Wilson v. Haimerl

795 N.E.2d 681, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1541
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 10, 2003
Docket2003-0896
StatusPublished

This text of 795 N.E.2d 681 (Wilson v. Haimerl) 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
Wilson v. Haimerl, 795 N.E.2d 681, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1541 (Ohio 2003).

Opinion

Madison App. No. CA2002-08-017, 2003-0hio-1774. Discretionary appeal allowed on Proposition of Law No. I.

O’Connor, J., concurs but would also hold for the decision in 2002-1126 and 2002-1433, Allen v. Johnson, Wayne App. Nos. 01CA0046 and 01CA0047, 2002-0hio-3404. Moyer, C.J., concurs but would allow Proposition of Law No. I and hold for the decision in Allen; and would allow Proposition of Law No. II and hold for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502. Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., concur but would allow all propositions of law without holding. Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
795 N.E.2d 681, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-haimerl-ohio-2003.