Workman v. Carlisle Engineered Products, Inc.
This text of 788 N.E.2d 1098 (Workman v. Carlisle Engineered Products, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Cuyahoga App. Nos. 81179 and 81211, 2003-Ohio-293.
Discretionary appeal denied on Proposition of Law No. I.
Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., dissent, would allow, and would hold on this proposition of law for the decision in Taylor v. Kemper Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81360, 2003-0hio-177.
Discretionary appeal allowed on Proposition of Law No. II and cause held for the decision in 2002-0803 and 2002-0837, German v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., Richland App. No. 01CA512, 2002-0hio-1848; briefing schedule stayed.
Discretionary appeal allowed on Proposition of Law No. Ill and cause held for the decision in 2002-0579, Burkhart v. CNA Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2001CA00265, 2002-0hio-903; briefing schedule stayed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
788 N.E.2d 1098, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/workman-v-carlisle-engineered-products-inc-ohio-2003.