Riedel v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- State v. ConsilioOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. SavordOhio Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by27 opinions
- Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Department of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Hamer v. Danbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Osborne Co., Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
- State v. BlackOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.