Joseph v. CSX Transp. 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 Joseph v. CSX Transp. Co., 89 Ohio St.3d 111, 2000-Ohio-439.]

JOSEPH, APPELLANT, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION COMPANY ET AL.; GERMAN
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Joseph v. CSX Transp. Co. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 111.]
Civil procedure -- Party challenging constitutionality of statute must assert claim
in complaint (or other initial pleading) or an amendment thereto, and
must serve Attorney General pursuant to Civ.R. 4.1 in order to vest
jurisdiction under R.C. 2721.12 -- Judgment of court of appeals vacated
and judgment of trial court reinstated to the extent that it decided issues
other than constitutional questions Cicco v. Stockmaster.
(No. 99-826 -- January 26, 2000 -- Decided June 7, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Seneca County, No. 13-98-68.
__________________

Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., Michael T. Murray and Steven C. Bechtel,
for appellant.

Manahan, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and William F.
Pietrykowski, for appellee.
__________________

The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated for lack of jurisdiction,
Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, and the
judgment of the trial court is reinstated to the extent that it decided issues other
than constitutional questions.

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

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.

PFEIFER, J., dissents.
__________________

DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment only. While I agree with the
ultimate resolution, I do not subscribe to the majority's reliance on Cicco v.
Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, in disposing of this
matter. I believe that Cicco was not properly decided and, accordingly, I continue
to adhere to my dissent therein.

2