Legal Opinion

Firestone v. Galbreath

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 1993No. 92-1925PublishedCited by 50 opinions

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

  1. Morton v. PetittOhio Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Spinner v. NuttMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  2. Fell v. RamboCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  3. Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
  4. Doughty v. MorrisNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Roll v. EdwardsOhio Court of Appeals · 2004

45 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