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

  1. Columbus Equipment Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988