Legal Opinion · Dissent

Louden v. A.O. Smith Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 2009No. Nos. 2007-1819 and 2007-1821Published

1DissentPfeifer, J.

{¶ 36} The majority opinion is another example of this court obfuscating rather than promoting justice.

{¶ 37} “This court has long recognized that, in construing the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the law favors and protects the right of appeal and that a liberal construction of the rules is required in order to promote the objects of the Appellate Procedure Act and to assist the parties in obtaining justice. In re Guardianship of Love (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 111, 115 [48 O.O.2d 107], 249 N.E.2d 794.” Maritime Mfrs., Inc. v. Hi-Skipper Marina (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 257, 258, 24 O.O.3d 344, 436…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Westfield Insurance v. GalatisOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Groch v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Reichert v. IngersollOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Maritime Manufacturers, Inc. v. Hi-Skipper MarinaOhio Supreme Court · 1982

6 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