History
  • No items yet
midpage
2000 Ohio 433
Ohio
2000

LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, ET AL.

Nos. 98-2110 and 98-2481

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

June 7, 2000

89 Ohio St.3d 110 | 2000-Ohio-433

Civil procedure—Judgments of court of appeals affirmed to the extent they vacated default judgments and causes remanded to trial court for further proceedings in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster.

Submitted February 23, 2000

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 1997CA00417 and 1998CA00001.

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 1997CA00420 and 1997CA00445.

The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Steven P. Okey and Scott A Washam, for appellants and cross-appellees.

Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, D. John Travis and Gary L. Nicholson, for appellee and cross-appellant Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc.

Davis & Young and Henry A. Hentemann, for appellee and cross-appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant Attorney General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General, in case No. 98-2110.

{¶ 1} The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.

{¶ 2} The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they vacated the default judgments. The causes are remanded to the trial court with instructions to permit plaintiffs to serve the Attorney General in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment.

PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent.

DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment only.

{¶ 3} While I agree with the ultimate resolution, I do not subscribe to the majority‘s reliance on Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, in disposing of this matter. I believe that Cicco was not properly decided and, accordingly, I continue to adhere to my dissent therein.

Case Details

Case Name: Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 7, 2000
Citations: 2000 Ohio 433; 89 Ohio St. 3d 110; 1998-2110, 98-2481
Docket Number: 1998-2110, 98-2481
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In