Case ID: ohio-st-3d_69/html/0610-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Moyer, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Depew et al., Appellants, v. Ogella, Appellee.
    [Cite as Depew v. Ogella (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 610.]
    (No. 94-742
    Submitted June 15, 1994
    Decided July 27, 1994.)
    
      Layboume, Smith, Gore & Goldsmith, A. Russell Smith, Robert B. Layboume and Joy S. Wagner, for appellants.
    
      Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs Co., L.P.A., and David W. Hilkert, for appellee.
   The motion to certify the record is allowed, the judgment on appeal is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415, 633 N.E.2d 504.

AM. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.

Wright, J., dissents.

Moyer, C.J.,

concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent in Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415, 633 N.E.2d 504, stated, 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.