Title: Castle Nursing Homes, Inc. v. Sullivan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CASTLE NURSING HOMES, INC., APPELLEE, v. SULLIVAN, APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as Castle Nursing Homes, Inc. v. Sullivan (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 230.] 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. I through 
IV — Civil procedure — Plain-error doctrine is not favored, but may be 
applied, when. 
(No. 96-2656 — Submitted June 11, 1997 — Decided July 23, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Holmes County, No. 95-CA-541. 
___________________ 
 
Hahn, Loeser & Parks, L.L.P., Robert D. Kehoe and Paul Mancino III; 
Schuler Law Firm, Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnston and Daniel L. Mathie, for 
appellee. 
 
Katherine C. Hart Smith, for appellant. 
___________________ 
 
The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed 
on Propositions of Law Nos. I through IV. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on Proposition of Law No. 
V and remanded for reconsideration in light of our decision in Goldfuss v. 
Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 
 
COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Because the appellate 
court did not invoke the plain-error doctrine to reverse the jury’s duplicative 
damage awards on the alternative theories of breach of contract and promissory 
estoppel, but instead found that Castle Nursing Homes, Inc. did not invite error in 
the first instance, Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 
1099, is inapposite to this case.  Accordingly, I would dismiss the case as 
improvidently allowed on all propositions of law.  
 
2
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.