Legal Opinion
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Antonelli
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 4, 1987No. 86-908PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The issue presented in this case is whether the proceeds of a workers’ compensation award, having been paid to a claimant, are subject to attachment. We hold in the affirmative.
R.C. 2329.66, which establishes the statutory right to exempt property from attachment, provides in pertinent part:
“(A) Every person who is domiciled in this state may hold property exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order, as follows:
* *
“(9) The person’s interest in:
“(a) Moneys paid or payable for living maintenance or rights, as exempted by section 3304.19 of the Revised…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dennis v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Thiel v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1986
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cunningham v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2015
- Decker & Mattison Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2002
- State v. WillanOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Florida Asset Financing Corp. v. Utah Labor CommissionCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2004
- Hadassah v. SchwartzOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.