Ohio Supreme Court· 12/9/1992
In re VHA Diagnostic Services, Inc.
Citations
- 65 Ohio St. 3d 210
- 602 N.E.2d 647
- 1992 Ohio LEXIS 2892
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining, in construing a particular statute, that “[t]he words 20 January Term, 2020 ‘after receiving’ are clear and unambiguous. It is improper for the administrative agency to change the words ‘after receiving’ to, in effect, ‘after determining it has received’ ”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brown, Douglas, Holmes, McCormac, Moyer, Petree, Resnick, Shaw, Sweeney, Third, Whiteside, Wright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.