Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Hardy v. VerMeulen
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 12, 1987No. 86-1448Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWright, J.
Today, a majority of this court attributes a meaning to Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution not heretofore recognized in the one hundred thirty-six year history of the provision.9 This result is most certainly not supported by the language of the provision itself. Since today’s holding effectively rewrites a provision of the Ohio Constitution, I am compelled to dissent.
R.C. 2305.11 provides, in pertinent part:.“(A) An action for * * * malpractice, including an action for malpractice against a physician, podiatrist, [or a] hospital * * *, shall be brought within one year after the…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Bounds v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. KrasSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Silver v. SilverSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Rosenberg v. Town of North BergenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1972
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.