Legal Opinion · Dissent

MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1991No. 90-1236Published

1DissentAlice Robie Resnick, J.

I respectfully dissent from the decision reached by the majority. The majority overrules our decision in Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 389, 6 OBR 439, 453 N.E.2d 570, in the language of the opinion, but not in the syllabus. Such a drastic change in the law of workers’ compensation should be made, if at all, in the syllabus. See Rule 1(B) of the Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions: “The syllabus of a Supreme Court opinion states the controlling point or points of law * * *.” In Ohio, the syllabus of a Supreme Court case states the law. See Truesdale v. Dallman…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Lord v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Thackery v. HelfrichOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Jack and Julie Truesdale v. William Dallman and Dorothy ArnCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API