Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	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

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 89 Ohio St.3d 523, 2000-Ohio-229.]

LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE OF
COLUMBUS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT.
LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE AND CROSS-
APPELLANT, ET AL.
[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 523.]
On motion for reconsideration and clarification -- Motion granted as reflected in
this entry.
(Nos. 98-2110 and 98-2481 -- July 25, 2000 -- Decided September 6, 2000.)
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos.
1997CA00417 and 1998CA00001.
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos.
1997CA00420 and 1997CA00445.
ON RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION.
__________________

The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Steven P. Okey and Scott A. Washam, for
appellants and cross-appellees.

Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, D. John Travis and Gary L. Nicholson,
for appellee and cross-appellant Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc.

Davis & Young and Henry A. Hentemann, for appellee and cross-appellant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant
Attorney General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General, in
case No. 98-2110.
__________________

On June 7, 2000, this court made the following entry in this case:

"The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.

"The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they
vacated the default judgments. The causes are remanded to the trial court with
instructions to permit plaintiffs to serve the Attorney General in accordance with
R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d
1066." See 89 Ohio St.3d 110, 728 N.E.2d 1078.

The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.
The motion for reconsideration and clarification is granted.

The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they vacated
the default judgments. The causes are remanded to the trial court with instructions
to permit plaintiffs to rectify their failure to timely and properly serve the Attorney

2

General by serving the Attorney General in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and
Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, and to permit
defendants to file separate answers. The remainder of the judgments of the court
of appeals will then be rendered moot.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3