Edwards v. at&T Technologies Edwards v. at&T Technologies

Edwards v. at&T Technologies

42 Ohio St.3d 119, 537 N.E.2d 1305, OH.40783(1989)

    • £0.49
    • £0.49

Publisher Description

Per Curiam. We begin our review by noting that the appellate court judgment was rendered without the benefit of our recent decision in
Clementi v. Wean United, Inc. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 342, 530 N.E. 2d 909. Clementi, in applying R.C. 4123.84's statute of
limitations to "flow-through" conditions, requires any motion for additional allowance to be filed within two years "of the
time claimant knew or should have known of the additional condition." Id. at syllabus.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1989
3 May
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
3
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
58.4
KB

More Books by The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio

Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing
1989
Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati
1987
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Antonelli Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Antonelli
1987
Pitts v. Cincinnati Met. Housing Auth. Pitts v. Cincinnati Met. Housing Auth.
1953
In re Pottery In re Pottery
1954
State Ex Rel Sanor Sawmill, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio State Ex Rel Sanor Sawmill, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
2004