Firestone v. Galbreath
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*88With regard to certified question No. 1, the federal court order uses the language, “ * * * with expectancy or inheritance * * *[.]” (Emphasis added.) The briefs of the parties present different versions of this phrase: Petitioners Jeffrey Firestone and David Firestone state, “with expectancy of inheritance * * * ” (emphasis added); respondents Daniel M. Galbreath et al. use the language, “with expectancy of an inheritance * * * ” (emphasis added); respondent Bolon, Hart & Buehler, Inc. states, “with an expected inheritance” (emphasis added); and respondents Bricker & Eckler et al. track the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morton v. PetittOhio Supreme Court · 1931
3Cited by50 opinions
- Spinner v. NuttMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Fell v. RamboCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
- Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Doughty v. MorrisNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- Roll v. EdwardsOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.