Yepko v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Yepko v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

674 N.E.2d 373, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1521

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1997

Docket96-2625

StatusPublished

This text of 674 N.E.2d 373 (Yepko v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.) 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

Yepko v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 674 N.E.2d 373, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1521 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Certified State Law Question, No. 395CV7550. On consideration of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct-Prac.R. XVIII(6). The following question of Ohio law was certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division:

“Whether a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of an insured decedent can recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the decedent’s insurance policy, either individually or through the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, if the claimant is not an insured as defined in the policy.”

Sua sponte, the certified question and the cause are held for the decision in 96-764 and 96-852, Holt v. Grange Mut. Cos. Co., Butler App. No. CA95-11-192; briefing schedule stayed; oral argument shall not be scheduled.

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

Certified State Law Question, No. 395CV7550. On consideration of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct-Prac.R. XVIII(6). The following question of Ohio law was certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division:

“Whether a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of an insured decedent can recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the decedent’s insurance policy, either individually or through the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, if the claimant is not an insured as defined in the policy.”

Sua sponte, the certified question and the cause are held for the decision in 96-764 and 96-852, Holt v. Grange Mut. Cos. Co., Butler App. No. CA95-11-192; briefing schedule stayed; oral argument shall not be scheduled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 N.E.2d 373, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yepko-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-ohio-1997.