From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 23, 1994
628 N.E.2d 1351 (Ohio 1994)

Opinion

No. 93-295

Submitted February 1, 1994 —

Decided March 23, 1994.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 60415.

Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Thomas Mester, Richard L. Demsey and Joel Levin, for appellants.

Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack Manos Co., L.P.A., Dale E. Markworth, Robert E. Blackham and Eli Manos, for appellee Talley Machinery Corporation.


The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 626 N.E.2d 75.

A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., concurs separately.

WRIGHT, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, 626 N.E.2d 75, 79-81.


I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As stated in Justice Wright's dissent in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, 626 N.E.2d 75, 79-81, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.


Summaries of

Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 23, 1994
628 N.E.2d 1351 (Ohio 1994)
Case details for

Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FORD ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. TALLEY MACHINERY CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 23, 1994

Citations

628 N.E.2d 1351 (Ohio 1994)
628 N.E.2d 1351

Citing Cases

DeRolph v. State

[¶ 49] It is not unusual for me to join a judgment that is based on a decision with which I initially…