Narrative Opinion Summary
Judge Pfeifer dissents, advocating for the reversal of the court of appeals' decision and the reinstatement of the trial court's ruling. He emphasizes reliance on R.C. 2317.02, which pertains to privileged communications, rather than the precedent set in Hearn v. Rhay. Additionally, Lynch, White, and Richard S. Lynch support the call for reversal as amicus curiae, alongside Buckingham, Lucal, McGookey, Zeiher Co. L.P.A., and John R. Ball.
Legal Issues Addressed
Privileged Communications under R.C. 2317.02subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Pfeifer argues that the case should be decided based on the provisions of R.C. 2317.02, which governs privileged communications, rather than relying on the precedent set in Hearn v. Rhay.
Reasoning: He emphasizes reliance on R.C. 2317.02, which pertains to privileged communications, rather than the precedent set in Hearn v. Rhay.
Role of Amicus Curiae in Judicial Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lynch, White, Richard S. Lynch, and several legal firms support the dissent advocating for reversal as amicus curiae, highlighting the influence and perspectives that external parties can bring in advocating for a particular judicial outcome.
Reasoning: Additionally, Lynch, White, and Richard S. Lynch support the call for reversal as amicus curiae, alongside Buckingham, Lucal, McGookey, Zeiher Co. L.P.A., and John R. Ball.