The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContactEarn with us
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Norton v. City of Galion
Ohio Supreme Court

Norton v. City of Galion

No. 86-1472·Judge: Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright·Attorney: Joseph H. Weiss, Jr. and Richard J. Makowski, for appellants., Debra Garverick, law director, and James L. Hoover, for appellee city of Galion et al., E. Richard Hottenroth, for appellees Paulette Ritchey Boehm and Kenneth E. Durtsche, in their individual capacities.0 citations·Filed May 20, 1987

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Key Issues of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Key Facts of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Decision of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • This cause, on appeal from the court of appeals (case No. 3-86-11), is revers...

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Key Issues of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Key Facts of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Decision of the case Norton v. City of Galion
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • This cause, on appeal from the court of appeals (case No. 3-86-11), is revers...

Summary of the case Norton v. City of Galion

The case was reversed on appeal from the court of appeals based on the authority of several precedents, including DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. The appeal is reinstated with concurrence from all justices.

Key Issues of the case Norton v. City of Galion

  • Reversal of court of appeals decision
  • Application of precedent cases

Key Facts of the case Norton v. City of Galion

  • The case was appealed from the court of appeals (case No. 3-86-11).
  • The decision was reversed based on the authority of DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. and other cases.

Decision of the case Norton v. City of Galion

Reversed and appeal reinstated

Opinions

This cause, on appeal from the court of appeals (case No. 3-86-11), is reversed on authority of DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 189, 23 O.O. 3d 210, 431 N.E. 2d 644; Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 220, 222-223, 18 OBR 281, 282-283, 480 N.E. 2d 802, 804-805; Hawkins v.

Marion Correctional Institute (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 4, 28 OBR 3, 501 N.E. 2d 1195; State v. Newcome (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 7, 28 OBR 5, 501 N.E. 2d 1197; National Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Papenhagen (1987), 30 Ohio St. 3d 14, 30 OBR 21, 505 N.E. 2d 980, and the appeal is reinstated. Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

[email protected]
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap