Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp.

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Ford et al., Appellants, v. Talley Machinery Corporation et al., Appellees. [Cite as Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp. (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Statutes of limitations -- Recent United States Supreme Court decision may not be retroactively applied to bar claims in state courts which had accrued prior to the announcement of that decision -- Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution, applied. (No. 93-295 -- Submitted February 1, 1994 -- Decided March 23, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 60415.

Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Thomas Mester, Richard L. Demsey and Joel Levin, for appellants. Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos Co., L.P.A., Dale E. Markworth, Robert E. Blackham and Eli Manos, for appellee Talley Machinery Corporation.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court on authority of Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d , N.E.2d . A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. Wright, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, N.E.2d , . No. 93-295 Moyer, C.J., concurring Separately File No. 8050 Doc. No. 1994Y

Ford v. Talley Mach. Corp. Moyer, C.J., concurring separately. I concur separately

in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As stated in Justice Wright's dissent in Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 240, 246-250, N.E.2d , , I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.