Case ID: ohio-st-3d_92/html/0211-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Washington, Gdn., et al., Appellants, v. Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee.
    [Cite as Washington v. Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 211.]
    
      (No. 00-1951
    Submitted May 16, 2001
    Decided July 5, 2001.)
    
      Cochran & Naso and Carmen Naso, for appellant Phyllis Washington.
    
      Robert P. Rutter, for appellant Danielle Washington.
    
      Law Office of Terrence J. Kenneally & Associates, Terrence J. Kenneally and John M. Bostwick, Jr., for appellee.
   The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.E.2d 1077, and Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 744 N.E.2d 719.

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

Moyer, C.J., Cook, and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in judgment.

Cook, J.,

concurring. I concur in judgment on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II based on the reasoning set forth in my dissenting opinion in Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.E.2d 1077, and in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 744 N.E.2d 719. I would dismiss Proposition of Law III as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.