Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Barry Equipment Co. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 21, 1988No. 87-1745Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDouglas, J.
For the reasons stated in Justice Locher’s well-reasoned dissent, in which I concurred, in Columbus Equipment Co. v. Limbach (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 62, 526 N.E. 2d 294, I would in this case reverse the decision of the BTA on the appeal. I would affirm the decision of the BTA on the cross-appeal.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Columbus Equipment Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988