Legal Opinion

Riedel v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 2010No. 2009-1070PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

{¶ 1} The proposition of law presented by the appellants is as follows: “An asbestos claim subject to H.B. 292 may not be severed from non-asbestos claims arising from the same lawsuit and involving the same indivisible jury.” 1 We conclude that the General Assembly did not intend the statutory scheme addressing asbestos claims to apply to non-asbestos claims and, therefore, that non-asbestos claims can be severed from asbestos claims.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Appellees Jack E. Riedel, Danny R. Six, and Josephine Weldy (collectively, “Riedel”) separately brought suit against…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ConsilioOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. SavordOhio Supreme Court · 1950

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Department of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Hamer v. Danbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. State ex rel. DeWine v. Osborne Co., Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. State v. BlackOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API