Legal Opinion

Viers v. Dunlap

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 1982No. 81-1659PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.

The Court of Appeals, in certifying the herein action to this court, divided the issue to be considered into three discrete queries: “(1) whether R.C. 2315.19, effective June 20, 1980, is substantive or procedural and remedial in nature; (2) if procedural and remedial, should R.C. 2315.19 be applied retrospectively or prospectively; and (3) would prospective application include application to negligence cases arising prior to the effective date of the statute, but tried after the effective date.” We find our determination that R.C. 2315.191 affects substantive rights and must be applied…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Hoffman v. JonesSupreme Court of Florida · 1973
  3. Kaatz v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Godfrey v. WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Kirby v. LarsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Evangelatos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Jones v. VIP Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Vogel v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Fritz ByersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  5. Wilfong v. BatdorfOhio Supreme Court · 1983

27 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