Legal Opinion

Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1994No. 93-241PublishedCited by 92 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

■Pfeifer, J.

I

We are first asked to decide whether the law of fixtures should be applied when determining if an improvement to real property exists as that term is used in R.C. 2305.131. Citing Zangerle v. Std. Oil of Ohio (1945), 144 Ohio St. 506, 30 O.O. 151, 60 N.E.2d 52, appellants argue that fixture law should be applied and if it is, Sodium Handling Area 1100 is personal property, not a fixture, and hence cannot be classified as an improvement to real property. Therefore, appellants contend that R.C. 2305.131 is inapplicable and this action must be remanded to the trial court. Bechtel…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Sedar v. Knowlton Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Mullis v. Southern Co. Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1982
  4. Burgess v. Eli Lilly & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Daniel C. Adair v. The Koppers Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984

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

3Cited by92 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Arbino v. Johnson & JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Chambers v. St. Mary's SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Groch v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State v. ConsilioOhio Supreme Court · 2007

87 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