History
  • No items yet
midpage
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
110 Ohio St. 3d 1462
Ohio
2006
Check Treatment

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, No. 3:06 CV 40010. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following questions:

1. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.18, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

3. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.20, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

4. “Is Ohio Revised Code {2315.21, as amended by Senate Bill 80, effective, April 7, 2005, unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?”

O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., would also answer the second certified question. Pfeifer, J., dissents. Resnick, J., not participating.

On motion for admission pro hac vice of Robert S. Peck and Stephen B. Pershing by Janet G. Abaray. Motion granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 23, 2006
Citation: 110 Ohio St. 3d 1462
Docket Number: 2006-1212
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.