Case ID: ohio-st-3d_68/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, J., Moyer, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ford et al., Appellants, v. Talley Machinery Corporation et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 473.]
    
      (No. 93-295
    Submitted February 1, 1994
    Decided March 23, 1994.)
    
      Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Thomas Mester, Richard L. Demsey and Joel Levin, for appellants.
    
      Mans our, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos Co., L.P.A., Dale E. Markworth, Robert E. Blackham and Eli Manos, for appellee Talley Machinery Corporation.
   The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 626 N.E.2d 75.

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

Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.

Wright, J.,

dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, 626 N.E.2d 75, 79-81.

Moyer, C.J.,

concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As stated in Justice Wright’s dissent in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, 626 N.E.2d 75, 79-81, 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.