Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Schaefer v. Allstate Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1992No. Nos. 91-764 and 91-1042, and Nos. 91-2105 and 91-2333Published

1Concurring in the judgmentWright, J.

A plurality of this court has, sua sponte, taken this case as an opportunity to pronounce law on an issue neither briefed by the parties nor discussed by any court below. Although I am not troubled by the end result achieved by the plurality, I am disturbed by the “law” the plurality gratuitously pronounces in reaching its decision. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment only.

I

I am somewhat fascinated to learn that the plurality considers “nonbinding arbitration” to be an oxymoron and “binding arbitration” to be a redundancy. Not only will this be news to the parties in these cases, the trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Pepin v. American Universal InsuranceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1988
  3. Mendes v. Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  4. Field v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1991
  5. Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental DisabilitiesOhio Supreme Court · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API