From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 20, 1994
71 Ohio St. 3d 1211 (Ohio 1994)

Summary

granting a motion for clarification and correcting the last sentence of the majority opinion

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Fuller v. Friedland

Opinion

No. 93-241

Submitted November 1, 1994 —

Decided December 20, 1994.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, Nos. 92-A-1689 and 92-A-1690.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Thomas Mester, Richard C. Alkire, Joel Levin and Sandra J. Rosenthal, for appellants.

Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley Howley and William H. Baughman, Jr., for appellee William Powell Company.


Appellee Powell's motion for clarification is granted. The last sentence of the majority opinion, Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 460, 467, 639 N.E.2d 425, 431, is amended nunc pro tunc to read:

"All remaining causes against Bechtel are remanded to the trial court."

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 20, 1994
71 Ohio St. 3d 1211 (Ohio 1994)

granting a motion for clarification and correcting the last sentence of the majority opinion

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Fuller v. Friedland

clarifying last sentence of majority opinion

Summary of this case from McCarthy v. Lee
Case details for

Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co.

Case Details

Full title:BRENNAMAN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. R.M.I. COMPANY; BECHTEL GROUP, INC. ET…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 20, 1994

Citations

71 Ohio St. 3d 1211 (Ohio 1994)
643 N.E.2d 138

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Fuller v. Friedland

The statement to the contrary in another portion of the opinion was an obvious clerical error, subject to…

Stark Cnty. Park Dist. v. Dickerhoff

{¶ 36} We review the interpretation of R.C. 5303.01 de novo with no deference to the trial court's analysis.…