Title: May v. Tandy Corp.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
May, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Tandy Corporation,                         
Appellee; Diamantis, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.                               
[Cite as May v. Tandy Corp. (1994),     Ohio St.3d    .]                         
Torts -- Damages -- Collateral benefits -- R.C. 2317.45                          
     violates Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio                        
     Constitution, and is unconstitutional in toto --                            
     Cross-appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.                            
     (No. 93-1402 -- Submitted January 11, 1994 -- Decided June                  
1, 1994.)                                                                        
     Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the Court of Appeals for                       
Cuyahoga County, No. 62679.                                                      
                                                                                 
     Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Richard                   
C. Alkire, Jeffrey A. Leikin and Sandra J. Rosenthal, for                        
appellant and cross-appellee.                                                    
     William J. Coyne & Associates Co., L.P.A., Terrance P.                      
Gravens and Michael E. Stinn, for appellee and cross-appellant.                  
                                                                                 
     The judgment on appeal is reversed and the cause is                         
remanded to the trial court on authority of Sorrell v. Thevenir                  
(1994),     Ohio St.3d    ,     N.E.2d    , decided today.  The                  
cross-appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been                            
improvidently allowed.                                                           
     A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer,                   
JJ., concur.                                                                     
     Moyer, C.J., and Wright, J., dissent.