Legal Opinion
Bryant v. Dayton Casket Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 24, 1982No. 81-798PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
In interpreting R. C. 4123.90, or any enactment of the General Assembly which is reasonably free of ambiguity, this court must apply the common and generally accepted meaning to the wording of the statute.
As stated in Provident Bank v. Wood (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 101, at 105-106:
“There is no lack of general rules to guide the court in its effort to ascertain the meaning of the statutes before it. The principles of statutory construction are given exhaustive treatment in 50 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, 129 to 310, Sections 160 to 327. It is a cardinal rule that a court must first look to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sears v. WeimerOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Provident Bank v. WoodOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- Texas Steel Co. v. DouglasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
3Cited by32 opinions
- Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2011
- Overnite Transportation Co. v. GaddisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1990
- Brooks v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- White v. Mount Carmel Medical CenterOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
- Roseborough v. N.L. IndustriesOhio Supreme Court · 1984
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.