You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Smith v. Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc.

Citations: 126 Ohio St. 3d 64; 930 N.E.2d 319Docket: Nos. 2009-1471 and 2009-1546

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; July 8, 2010; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The certified question is answered affirmatively, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, referencing the precedents set in Kaminski v. Metal Wire Products Co. and Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services LLC. The appellant's request for full briefing and argument, or alternatively for remand, is denied. Justices Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp concur with the decision, while Justice Pfeifer dissents, citing his reasons from previous dissenting opinions in the referenced cases. Chief Justice Brown did not participate in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certified Question Answered Affirmatively

Application: The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals by answering the certified question affirmatively, relying on precedents.

Reasoning: The certified question is answered affirmatively, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, referencing the precedents set in Kaminski v. Metal Wire Products Co. and Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services LLC.

Denial of Request for Full Briefing and Argument

Application: The appellant's request for further legal processes, such as full briefing and argument or remand, was denied by the court.

Reasoning: The appellant's request for full briefing and argument, or alternatively for remand, is denied.

Judicial Concurrence and Dissent

Application: The majority of justices concurred with the decision, while one justice dissented, providing consistency with his previous dissenting opinions.

Reasoning: Justices Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp concur with the decision, while Justice Pfeifer dissents, citing his reasons from previous dissenting opinions in the referenced cases.

Non-Participation of Chief Justice

Application: The Chief Justice did not participate in the decision-making process of this case.

Reasoning: Chief Justice Brown did not participate in the decision.