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

  1. Dennis v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Thiel v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Cunningham v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Decker & Mattison Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2002
  3. State v. WillanOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Florida Asset Financing Corp. v. Utah Labor CommissionCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2004
  5. Hadassah v. SchwartzOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

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