Paulin v. Midland Mutual Life Ins.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
To support its reliance upon the “recurrent disabilities” provision of the policy, the Court of Appeals found it necessary, in effect, to make two additional findings of fact: (1) That appellee suffered periods of total disability prior to June 16, 1969; and (2) that such prior periods of disability occurred at least through December 16, 1968. Neither of those findings contradicts the pertinent finding of the trial court that:
“5. On or about June 16, 1969, plaintiff became totally disabled, said disability being caused by an injury sustained by plaintiff on May 7, 1968.”
However, the power of…
2Cited by15 opinions
- State v. PeaglerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- C. Miller Chevrolet, Inc. v. City of Willoughby HillsOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. BooherOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Herrera v. BENEFIT TRUST LIFE INSUR. CO.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1984
- State v. PeaglerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.