Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Jacobson v. Kaforey (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 2016No. 2015-1340Published

1Concurring in the judgmentKennedy, J.

*402{¶ 14} I agree with the majority that R.C. 2307.60 does create an independent civil cause of action. However, because I believe that the statutory provision “is, itself, capable of bearing more than one meaning,” Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181, 2013-Ohio-2163, 992 N.E.2d 1111, ¶ 16, and therefore is ambiguous, I disagree with the majority’s analysis and concur in judgment only.

{¶ 15} Because the statute is ambiguous, we should consider other matters under R.C. 1.49 to determine the intention of the General Assembly. After consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 1.49, I agree that…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Arbino v. Johnson & JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Provident Bank v. WoodOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Wachendorf v. ShaverOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Groch v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997

21 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