Cotterman v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. , 34 Ohio St. 3d 48 ( 1987 )

Douglas, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. While I agree with the language set forth in the syllabus by the majority, I disagree with any holding of this court which acts to prevent appellant from having the opportunity to litigate his motion for prejudgment interest. The effect of today’s decision is grossly inequitable and, in essence, punishes a litigant who was acting in good faith, and without any guidance from this court.

Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.