Legal Opinion · Dissent

Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 2009No. 2007-1832Published

1DissentDonovan, J.

{¶ 79} I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, thus reinstating the trial court’s order compelling discovery. My focus in this dissent will not be on 2008 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 280 (“H.B. 280”), as I find the amendments to be merely remedial, since the Roes, in my view, are entitled to the discovery initially ordered by the trial court under pre-existing, as well as current, law. The Roes should be entitled to redress a pre-existing actionable wrong.

{¶ 80} The Roes have presented cognizable claims; they should be able to pursue discovery on their claims. “The…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Hearn v. RhayDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1975
  4. Philip Morris USA v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Med. Mut. of Ohio v. SchlottererOhio Supreme Court · 2009

9 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