Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1993No. 92-101Published

1DissentAlice Robie Resnick, J.

It is obvious to me that the majority has taken a completely new approach to Civ.R. 54(B) and abandoned years of precedent of this court. The majority’s analysis of Civ.R. 54(B) is in direct contravention of the purpose of the rule. Perhaps there is merit in allowing trial courts unbridled discretion when using “no just cause for delay” language, thus permitting piecemeal appeals. However, this should be done only after the Rules Advisory Committee has had an opportunity to study all of the consequences of such massive change and has considered comments from the bench and bar. It certainly…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  4. Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Carl M. Geupel Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971

10 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