|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
Ohio Court Cases and Opinions -
Ohio Legal Research
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
NOT
FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH
|
||||||||||
This
court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search
our site for more cases - CLICK
HERE |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw. OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. Turk et al., Appellants, v. Trolley Tours of Cleveland, Inc., dba Lolly The Trolley, et al., Appellees. [Cite as Turk v. Trolley Tours of Cleveland, Inc. (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Torts -- Damages -- Collateral benefits -- R.C. 2317.45 violates Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and is unconstitutional in toto. (No. 93-2019 -- Submitted January 12, 1994 -- Decided June 1, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos. 62964 and 63087. Spangenberg, Shibley, Traci, Lancione & Liber, Donald P. Traci and James A. Marx, for appellants. Richard R. Kuepper, for appellee Trolley Tours of Cleveland, Inc. Arter & Hadden, Irene C. Keyse-Walker, James A. Laurenson and Kathleen G. Dus, for appellee Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Company. The judgment is reversed as to Propositions of Law I and II and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), Ohio St.3d , N.E.2d , decided today. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Wright, J., dissent. |
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
Find An Attorney
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.