Legal Opinion
Swearingen v. Waste Technologies Industries
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided September 21, 1999No. Case Nos. 98 CO 26, 98 CO 35PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Vukovich, Judge.
The following appeal arises from the decision of the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas granting in part and denying in part a motion to admit counsel pro hac vice. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
I. FACTS
This matter arises out of an original complaint filed on January 9, 1997 by numerous plaintiffs against Waste Technologies Industries and its parent companies (hereinafter referred to as “appellees”). The complaint sought certification of a class action suit in addition to alleging claims of negligence, nuisance, and trespass.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Leis v. FlyntSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Cooper v. HutchinsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. J. C. Penney Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MuncieOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Boedeker v. RogersOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- State v. MuncieOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Westfall v. CrossOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
- In re Special Docket No. 73958Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.