Opinion

Kilbreath v. Rudy

16 Ohio St. 2d 70
45 Ohio Op. 2d 370
242 N.E.2d 658
1968 Ohio LEXIS 343

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Dec 11, 1968
Status: Published
Author: Taet
On the bench: Browrr, Doyle, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Ninth, Schneider, Taet, Zimmerman
Cited by: 76 cases

The opinion

Taet, C. J.

I dissent because Sections 2307.382 and 2307.383, Revised Code, do not expressly provide that they are to affect causes of action existing at the time of their enactment. See the latter part- of Section 1.20, Revised Code, beginning with the word, “nor,” and Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Rd. Co. v. Hedges (1900), 63 Ohio St. 339 , 58 N. E. 804 .

Doyle, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Herbert,. J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.