Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5272.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-5272 CONLEY ET AL., APPELLEES, v. FAURECIA EXHAUST SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL.; R & D MACHINE, INC., APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Conley v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5272.] Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I, judgment of the court of appeals reversed on the authority of Pettiford v. Aggarwal, and cause remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with Pettiford v. Aggarwal. (No. 2010-1192 Submitted September 28, 2010 Decided November 2, 2010.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Miami County, No. 2009 CA 26, 2010-Ohio-2394. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237, 934 N.E.2d 913, and SUPREME COURT OF OHIO the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with Pettiford v. Aggarwal. LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal. __________________ Volkema, Thomas, Miller & Scott, Michael S. Miller, and Warner M. Thomas Jr., for appellees. Freund, Freeze & Arnold, Gordon D. Arnold, and Patrick J. Janis, for appellant. ______________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
