IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
|
|
- Ashlyn McCarthy
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO GLENN SMITH ) Case No vs. Appellant, ) ) On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District CRAIG BARCLAY, ET AL. ) Court Of Appeals Case No. 11-AP Appellees. ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES CRAIG D. BARCLAY, CRAIG D. BARCLAY, L.L.C. AND CRAIG D. BARCLAY D/B/A ALTON & BARCLAY, CO., L.P.A. Counsel for Appellant, Glenn Smith: Jack Morrison, Jr. ( ) Thomas R. Houlihan ( ) Vicki L. DeSantis ( ) AMER CUNNINGHAM CO, L.P.A. 159 S. Main Street 1100 Key Building Tele Fax Houlihan@amer-law.com 01 ^^'01i J D C^EW OF 00, IJRT SG^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^TCOF- OHIO Counsel for Appellees, Craig D. Barclay, Craig D. Barclay, L.L.C., and Craig D. Barclay d/b/a Alton & Barclay, L.P.A.: Christopher R. Meyer ( ) Reese, Pyle, Drake & Meyer, P.L.L. 36 North Second St. P.O. Box 919 Newark, Ohio Tele Fax cmeyer@rpdm.com Counsel for Appellees, David Shroyer and Colley, Shroyer & Abraham, Co., L.P.A.: John C. Nemeth ( ) David A. Herd ( ) John C. Nemeth & Associates 21 East Frankfort Street Columbus, Ohio Tele herd@nemethlaw.com JAN 0 9 l 0 13 CLERK QF Cql^RT SUPREME COURT OF QNI
2 I II. III. IV. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS WHY THIS CASE IS NOT OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST STATEMENT OF FACTS LAW AND ARGUMENT A. Appellant's Proposition of Law 1. The Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations 2. The Cognizable Event Rule Under Zimmie Is An Objective Standard That Was Correctly Applied to the Facts of This Case CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
3 I. WHY THIS CASE IS NOT OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST This case is not one of public or great general interest; rather, it involves a straightforward application of this Court's test in Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswolt ( 1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d 54 to determine the accrual date for the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action. In Zimmie, this Court stated: "[A]n action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was related to his attorney's act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later." Id. at syllabus. The Zimmie test is frequently referred to as a two-part test or hybrid test because it combines a termination rule; that is, when the attorney-client relationship ends, with a discovery rule for determining the triggering event for the commencement of the statute of limitations. The parties agree that the attorney-client relationship in this case terminated on November 7, almost two years before Smith's legal malpractice suit was filed--when Appellee Craig Barclay ("Barclay") sent Smith a letter declining representation in his potential medical malpractice case. Accordingly, the Tenth District Court of Appeals properly focused on the discovery rule in Zimmie to determine if there was a later accrual date for the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals then correctly determined that the statute of limitations against Barclay accrued when Dr. Darrell Gill filed a motion for summary judgment in the underlying medical malpractice case on September 10, 2008, finding that to be the "cognizable event" triggering the statute of limitations for legal malpractice under Zimmie. In an attempt to make it appear as though the Tenth District has disregarded this Court's precedent, Smith claims that it has adopted a line of authority that "compresses" the Zimmie test 1
4 into a one-part inquiry. (Appellant's Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction, p. 12) He asserts that the motion for summary judgment "may have been sufficient to alert [him] that a potential problem, existed," but that the Court of Appeals has ignored that portion of the Zimmie test which requires that "the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney." Id. To the contrary, the Tenth District Court of Appeals specifically found that the September 10, 2008 motion for summary judgment "should have made Smith aware that a `questionable legal practice may have occurred' and [that Smith] might need to pursue remedies against his attorney." (November 20, 2012, Nunc Pro Tunc Decision p. 9) (Emphasis added). Smith contends that he was not put on "notice" of a need to pursue his possible remedies until the trial court issued a judicial detennination. However, as the Court recognized in its Decision, "[k]nowledge of a potential problem starts the statute to run, even when one does not know all the details." (November 20, 2012, Nunc Pro Tunc Decision, p. 9, quoting Halliwell v. Bruner, 8th Dist. No , 2000 WL , *6). Finally, contrary to Smith's argument, there is no conflict among the districts with regard to the application of the Zimmie test; rather, the courts of appeals have applied that test to different sets of facts, leading to different results. See, Taylor v. Brocker 117 Ohio App. 3d 174 (January 8, 1997). Accordingly, this Court should decline to' exercise jurisdiction. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On October 14, 2009, Appellant Glenn Smith filed his Complaint against Appellee Craig D. Barclay ("Barclay") for legal malpractice, claiming Attorney Barclay failed to extend the statute of limitations for Smith's underlying medical malpractice claim against Darrell Gill, D.O. ("Dr. Gill"). Smith also sued Barclay's professional limited liability company, Craig D. Barclay, 2
5 LLC, and his legal secretary Kim Van Doom ("Van Doom"), alleging that they too were liable for the same mistake. In their Answer the Appellees asserted, inter alia, the statute of limitations. On July 17, 2006, Dr. Gill had cared for Smith in the emergency room at Doctor's Hospital, Nelsonville, Ohio. Before leaving the hospital after midnight, Smith triggered the oneyear medical malpractice statute of limitations relative to that care, when he threatened to sue Dr. Gill for medical malpractice. Only days before the statute was to run, Smith engaged Barclay to investigate the feasibility of bringing a medical malpractice case against Dr. Gill, with Smith and Barclay signing a Malpractice Claim Investigation Contingent Fee Agreement on July 11, Under the terms of the agreement, Smith requested Barclay "to investigate whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe" he had "a meritorious medical malpractice... claim." Barclay agreed to pursue a claim "ifthe results of the investigation reveal that the...claim is meritorious" and ifbarclay "agrees to pursue said claim." Further, Barclay "in his absolute discretion" was permitted "to withdraw at any time from the case, if the claim does not appear recoverable to him." With the statute of limitations deadline looming, Barclay acted to secure more time for his investigation, sending five 180-day letters by certified mail. Only one letter was addressed and sent directly to Dr. Gill at his residence. Although that certified letter was dated and sent on July 6, 2007, Dr. Gill did not sign for the letter until July 21, 2007-three days after the one-year anniversary of Smith's last treatment by Dr. Gill and Smith's threat to sue him. In due course, Barclay completed his case investigation; and by letter dated November 7, 2007, Barclay advised Smith: 3
6 "I cannot recommend the filing of a lawsuit, nor can I represent you should decide to do so...in these medical negligence cases, it is incumbent upon the patient to prove that the medical care providers failed to meet the acceptable standard of care in treating the patient, and that such failure was the direct cause of significant harm to that patient. Unfortunately, I believe I would have difficulty establishing either of these essential proof elements in this case." Undeterred, Smith sought out and engaged other legal counsel, and on January 4, 2008, attorneys Jack Morrison, Jr. and Vicki L. DeSantis of Amer Cunningham Co., LPA (collectively, "Amer Firm") brought Smith's medical malpractice claims against Dr. Gill and Doctor's Hospital. Dr. Gill answered on March 10, 2008, asserting the medical malpractice statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. On August 11, 2008, Dr. Gill filed a Motion For Leave To File Motion For Summary Judgment "to address [Smith's] failure to file his claim of medical malpractice against Dr. Gill within the applicable statute of limitations under Ohio Revised Code Section " On September 10, 2008, Dr. Gill filed his Motion For Summary Judgment on the ground that "[Smith] failed to commence his medical malpractice claim against Dr. Gill within the oneyear statute of limitations in Ohio Rev. Code Section The care at issue occurred on July 17, 2006 and this lawsuit was not filed until January 4, 2008 (over one year and four months later)." Attached to the motion was an affidavit from Dr. Gill wherein he stated that he only rendered care and treatment to Smith on July 17, 2006, and that he "did not receive a 180-day letter in relation to this lawsuit." Based thereon, and upon Smith's own medical chart from the July 17, 2006 ER visit, wherein it is documented that "Smith was inquiring to the hospital staff whether they had ever heard of a malpractice lawyer," Dr. Gill's counsel argued that Smith's medical malpractice case "was time-barred as to Dr. Gill and should be dismissed. " One of Smith's lawyers, Vicki L. DeSantis, then contacted Barclay's office on September 4
7 19, 2008, asking for copies of the 180-day letters that Barclay had sent. Thereafter, on September 22, 2008, Barclay's legal secretary Van Doom faxed and mailed to attomey DeSantis an affidavit from Barclay with attachments, including the July 6, 2007, letter addressed and sent to Dr. Gill at his residence and the certified mail receipt showing that Dr. Gill had signed for the letter on July 21, 2007-three days after the one-year anniversary of Smith's last treatment by Dr. Gill and Smith 's threat to sue him. On October 3, 2008, Attomey DeSantis filed the Barclay affidavit and its attachments with Plaintiff's Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike Affidavit, and Motion For Sanctions. And the Amer Firm thereupon argued that Dr. Gill had been served "with 180-day letters at three locations to extend the one year statute on his medical malpractice claim." An affidavit from post office personnel was filed with the Court, further documenting July 21, 2007, as the date Dr. Gill signed for the 180-day letter addressed and sent to him at his residence. Contending that he did not remember signing for the 180-day letter on July 21, 2007, Dr. Gill, nonetheless, replied on October 10, 2008, that his personal receipt of the 180-day letter was three days too late anyway. Dr. Gill's motion for summary judgment was initially denied because the court concluded there was no proper evidence before it about when Appellant's statute of limitations for medical malpractice accrued. However, as stated above, the hospital records clearly documented the Appellant's threat to sue Dr. Gill for malpractice in the Emergency Room in Nelsonville at the time of his treatment by Dr. Gill on July 17, This evidence was eventually provided to the court in the proper form under Rule 56. And on August 21, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment to Dr. Gill on his statute of limitations defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Smith 5
8 v. Gill, 2010 WL , 2010-Ohio-4012 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2010). The Supreme Court declined review. Smith v. Gill, 127 Ohio St.3d 1485 (2010). Smith's legal malpractice case against Barclay was filed on October 14, The trial court found that the statute of limitations was triggered when Dr. Gill filed his September 10, 2008 motion for summary judgment. The trial court ultimately found that the statute of limitations expired before Smith's legal malpractice lawsuit was filed. The Tenth District Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. III. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. Appellant's Proposition of Law: IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE ARISING FROM UNDERLYING LITIGATION, A PLAINTIFF IS NOT PUT ON NOTICE OF A NEED (SIC) PURSUE POSSIBLE REMEDIES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY UNTIL THE UNDERLYING TRIAL COURT RULES UPON DEFENSES THAT RESULTED FROM THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY'S CONDUCT. Contrary to Appellant's Proposition of Law, the Tenth District Court of Appeals properly applied the test set forth in Zimmie and picked the proper accrual date for the legal malpractice statute of limitations. 1. The Legal Malpractice Statute oflimitations "[A]n action for malpractice *** shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued ***" Ohio Rev. Code (A). As stated above, this Court has promulgated a two-part test for "accrual": "[A]n action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was related to his attorney's act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney or when the attorney-client relationship for that particular transaction or undertaking terminates, whichever occurs later." 6
9 Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54, syllabus (1989) 2. The Ck-nizable Event Rule Under Zimmie Is An Obiective Standard That Was Correctly Applied to the Facts of This Case. The cognizable event rule was adopted by this Court to eliminate unfairness in cases where a party may be injured without knowing it. Flowers v. Walker (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 550 (citing the example of a surgical sponge not removed during an operation).1 The legal standard under Zimmie is an objective standard. It has been repeatedly found that "[a] cognizable event is that which would alert a reasonable person that a questionable legal practice may have occurred." DiSabato v. Thomas M. Tyack & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., 1999 WL , *4 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1999, citing Zimmie, 43 Ohio St.3d at 58 (emphasis added); accord Burzynski v. Bradley & Farris Co., L.P.A., 2001 WL , *3, Ohio-8846, p. 4 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 2001). Like any other potential tort plaintiff, the client is then "put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies." Zimmie, 43 Ohio St.3d at syllabus; accord Flowers, 63 Ohio St.3d at 549 (client then becomes obliged to "investigate the facts and circumstances relevant to her claim in order to pursue her remedies"). This Court has stated that the client -need not have actual knowledge of the facts, constructive knowledge being sufficient. Zimmie, 43 Ohio St.3d at syllabus ("knew or should have known") (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[a] plaintiff need not have discovered all the relevant facts necessary to file a claim in order to trigger the statute of limitations. [citation]" Flowers, 63 Ohio St.3d at 549. Thus, "[t]he focus should be on what the client was aware of and 1 Flowers is a medical malpractice case. But the same standard for "accrual" applies whether the action is for medical malpractice or for legal malpractice. Zimmie, 43 Ohio St.3d at 57. Accordingly, medical malpractice court opinions are frequently cited, and relied upon, in the legal malpractice context. E.g., id. 7
10 not an extrinsic judicial determination." McDade v. Spencer, 75 Ohio App.3d 639, 643 (10 Dist. 1991); Burzynski, 2001 WL , *3, 2001-Ohio-8846, p. 4. Smith argues that the assertion of a defense, or the filing of a motion, cannot trigger the running of the statute of limitations and "[o]nly when a trial court (or its equivalent) determines that the defense is valid should the legal malpractice statute of limitations begin to run." (Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, p. 10). Smith cites Vagianos v. Halpern, 8th Dist. No 76408, 2000 WL (December 14, 2000) and Vassil v. Gross & Gross, L.L.C., 8th Dist. No , 2011-Ohio-1920 (April 21, 2011) to support his position. The Eighth District in Vagianos and Vassil found, respectively, that the assertion of an affirmative defense of resjudicata in an Answer and that the notification of an employer that it intended to invoke a cross-default provision in an asset purchase agreement were not triggering events under Zimmie. Both were found to be nothing more that the "possibility or remote chance" of a probable malpractice claim rather than an "event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered that his injury was relation to his attorney's act or non-act and the client is put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies against the attorney" under Zimmie. When analyzing the specific facts of the instant case, the Tenth District Court of Appeals properly recognized that the September 10, 2008 motion for summary judgment triggered the statute of limitations stating: "[t]his motion describes the exact nature of Barclay's questionable legal practice. Indeed, the conduct described. in Dr. Gill's September 10, 2008 summaryjudgment motion is the basis for Smith's complaint in the present case:" Accordingly, this motion should have made Smith aware that a "questionable legal practice may have occurred" and [that Smith] might need to pursue remedies against his attorney." (November 20, 2012, Nunc Pro Tunc Decision, p. 9, emphasis added). 8
11 Unlike the "mere possibility" or "remote chance" of a probable legal malpractice claim described in Vagianos and Vassil, the September 10, 2008 motion for summary judgment should have made Smith aware of a potential legal malpractice and placed him on notice that he might need to pursue remedies. Smith's Proposition of Law requires a "ruling upon defenses that resulted from the defendant's conduct" before a cognizable event can be found under Zimmie. However, the Eighth District has expressly declined to adopt a "time of actual injury" rule. Barna v. Joseph, 8th Dist. No , 1989 WL (June 22, 1989). And the Eighth District agreed in Vagianos that the Zimmie test requires, in determining the cognizable event, that "the focus should be on what the client was aware of and not on an extrinsic judicial determination." Id. at *2. Accordingly, what Smith asserts as the rule of law in the Eighth District and is belied by and contradicted by its own decisions. Smith cites Johnson v. Garretson, 12th Dist. No. CA , 1992 WL (August 17, 1992), to support his argument that the statute of limitations begins to run from a trial court's grant of summary judgment and not some event prior to the court's ruling. The cursory description of the underlying facts in the decision indicates that the court decided that a client's general awareness that his attorney did not complete all necessary steps to accomplish transfer of a business was insufficient to constitute the triggering or cognizable event under Zimmie. However, the Johnson case dealt with an Answer that provided merely a "suggestion of potential problems." Id. at *3. Accordingly, Johnson is distinguishable. The Tenth District Court of Appeals has not diverged from this Court's precedent. Smith fails to recognize is that the test in Zimmie is an objective standard that is applied to vastly different fact patterns, leading to different results. In DiSabato v. Thomas M. Tyack & Assoc. 9
12 Co., L.P.A., 1999 WL (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1999); McDade v. Spencer, 75 Ohio App.3d 639 (10 Dist. 1991) and Bowman v. Tyack 2009-Ohio-1331 (10 Dist. 2009) the Tenth District correctly applied the Zimmie test to the facts of each case before it. Thus in DiSabato, McDade and Bowman, as in the case at bar, the cognizable event was the filing of a motion in the trial court - an event "that would alert a reasonable person that a questionable legal practice may have occurred." Smith's subjective beliefs about the merit of Dr. Gills' motion for summary judgment are irrelevant. The test is when the injured party became aware, or should have become aware, of the extent and seriousness of the legal problem. What could be any more "serious" and "extensive" than a statute of limitations defense that destroys the lawsuit? Smith was objectively on notice that a questionable legal practice may have occurred no later than the September 10, 2008 motion for summary judgment. Once on notice, Smith, like any other potential tort plaintiff, was then "put on notice of a need to pursue his possible remedies." Zimmie, 43 Ohio St.3d at syllabus; accord Flowers, 63 Ohio St.3d at 549 (client then becomes obliged to "investigate the facts and circumstances relevant to her claim in order to pursue her remedies"). Consequently, the Tenth District Court of Appeals properly determined that the statute of limitations began to accrue on September 10, Conclusion This Court should decline to accept jurisdiction as there is no actual conflict between the district courts which have correctly applied the test set forth in Zimmie in an objective manner to the facts of the cases before them. The Tenth District Court of Appeals properly applied the Zimmie test to the facts of the case at bar and Appellant's appeal to this Court is without merit. 10
13 Respectfully submitted, Christopher R. Meyer ( ) REESE, PYLE, DRAKE & MEYER, P.L.L. 36 North Second Street P.O. Box 919 Newark, Ohio Telephone: (740) Facsimile: (740) Attorney for Defendants Craig. D. Barclay, Craig. D. Barclay, LLC and Craig. D. Barclay d/b/a Alton & Barclay Co., LPA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum In Opposition of Jurisdiction of Appellees Craig. D. Barclay, Craig. D. Barclay, LLC and Craig. D. Barclay d/b/a Alton & Barclay Co., LPA was served by ordinary U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon Thomas R. Houlihan, Jack Morrison, Jr., Esq. and Vicki L. DeSantis, Esq., Amer Cunningham Co., L.P.A., 159 South Main Street, Suite 1100, Akron, Ohio and John C. Nemeth, Esq. and David A. Herd, Esq., John C. Nemeth & Associates, 21 East Frankfort Street, Columbus, Ohio on this day of January, & en? y'^^^ Christopher R. Meyer 11
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 10AP-864 v. : (C.P.C. No. 07CVA )
[Cite as Boggs v. Baum, 2011-Ohio-2489.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Clifford L. Boggs, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 10AP-864 v. : (C.P.C. No. 07CVA-06-7848) James L. Baum
More informationE rea z ^^ CLERK OF COURT REME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ^^ WALDRON, Case No Appellant
0^^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ^^ WALDRON, Appellant V. RICKEY, et al., Case No. 2014-0188 On Appeal from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, First Appellate District Case No. C 130274 Appellees MEMORANDUM
More informationAND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 10, 2006
[Cite as Steindler v. Meyers, Lamanna & Roman, 2006-Ohio-4097.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 86852 SHIRLEY STEINDLER Plaintiff-appellee vs. MEYERS, LAMANNA & ROMAN,
More informationWILLIAM BOWEN ) CASE NO. CV ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs ) ) FARMERS INS. CO., et al. ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO WILLIAM BOWEN ) CASE NO. CV 09 688770 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs ) ) FARMERS INS. CO., et al. ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendants. ) John P.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO RANDALL FIROR, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Hugh V. Firor, M.D., THOMAS FIROR, M.D., Individually, DAVID
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 13AP-648 v. : (C.P.C. No. 11CVA )
[Cite as Szwarga v. Riverside Methodist Hosp., 2014-Ohio-4943.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Elaina M. Szwarga et al., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 13AP-648 v. : (C.P.C. No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Sloan v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2003-Ohio-2661.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Theodore C. Sloan, Jr., : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 02AP-962 v. : (C.C. No. 94-10277)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RICHARD DIBENEDETTO ) Case No. 2009-0165 ) Appellant, ) ON APPEAL From the Hamilton County Court Of Appeals, -v- ) First Appellate District ) MARINEMAX OF OHIO, INC., et al,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT CASE NO. 12-CA-0032
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT CASE NO. 12-CA-0032 WAYNE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 12-CV-0124 KATHRYN KICK, as the personal representative of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Robert A. Neinast, CASE NO. 11-0435 -vs- Plaintiff - Petitioner On Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Appeals, Fifth District Case No. 2010-CA-011 Board of Trustees
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2011
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2011 KAY SAUER v. DONALD D. LAUNIUS DBA ALPHA LOG CABINS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 2008-00419-IV
More informationCLERK UF ta(3urf SIIPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO THE DISPATCH PRINTING CO., et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case No. 11-1006 -vs-. On Appeal From The Court Of Appeals Of Franklin County, Ohio, RECOVERY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et
More informationCLERK OF COURT SUPREME COUR'f OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO EDITH PATTERSON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO EDITH PATTERSON LEONARD R. JANIS. Appeal from the Franldin County Court Appellant,. of Appeals Case No. 07APE-04-347 08--0281 Appellee. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APPELLANT EDITH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Robinson v. Target Corp., 2011-Ohio-2544.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Dwayne Robinson, Jr., : Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : No. 10AP-812 (C.P.C. No. 09CVD-06-8663)
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO SHARON WALLACE, v. PLAINTIFF, MARCO AURELIO DE ALVIM COSTA, M.D., ET AL. DEFENDANTS. Case No. CV 16-871593 JUDGE MICHAEL E. JACKSON JOURNAL ENTRY AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. v. : No. 10AP-841 (C.C. No ) The Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing :
[Cite as Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd., 2011-Ohio-2273.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Dr. Terrie Sizemore, R.N., D.V.M., : Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : No. 10AP-841
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 05AP-217 (C.P.C. No. 04CVC ) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
[Cite as Chirico v. Home Depot, 2006-Ohio-291.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Samuel Chirico, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 05AP-217 (C.P.C. No. 04CVC02-01231) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OH1O CASE NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OH1O CASE NO. 06-2164 JOHN DOE, et al. and ON APPEAL FROM THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MARY MOE, et al. V. Pl aintiffs-appel l ants CATHOLIC DIOCESE
More information. I..i'ML OCT IZ CLERK OF GOURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant
. I..i'ML IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 12-1643 Plaintiff-Appellee, -vs- SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate
More informationKRISTI L. PALLEN DARRYL E. GORMLEY Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co Solon Road Solon, OH 44139
A ^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. ^ 3-0 7 6 U * On Appeal from the Cuyahoga Appellee County Court of Appeals, Eighth -vs- * Appellate District LAWRENCE P. BOROSH, ET AL. Appellants.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioners, CASE NOS.: 91,966 92,382 vs. 92,451 (Consolidated) JAMES S. PARHAM,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE CHARTERED, d/b/a FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE, CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., and CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., P.A., and GENE A. BALIS,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KERR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2010 v No. 282563 Oakland Circuit Court WEISMAN, YOUNG, SCHLOSS & LC No. 06-076864-CK RUEMENAPP, P.C.,
More information12 O74 i. IAY 10^^^^ RK OF COURT r^^rt OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB. Plaintiff-Appellee,
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB V. Plaintiff-Appellee, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 12 O74 i On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District WANDA L. HAIRSTON Defendant-Appellant. Court
More informationJOSE C. LISBOA, JR. KIMBERLY LISBOA
[Cite as Lisboa v. Lisboa, 2008-Ohio-3129.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90105 JOSE C. LISBOA, JR. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KIMBERLY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MEMORANDUM OF APPELLEE VERNON D. REYNOLDS, D.O., IN RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR JLTI2ISDICTION
%fy IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PHILIP A. CRAIG, NO. 14-1539 Appellant, vs. VERNON D. REYNOLDS, D.O., On Appeal from the Franklin County Court ofappeals,tenth Appellate District, Case No. 12 CV 12670
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as In re Foreclosure of Liens, 2015-Ohio-1258.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF THE: : O P I N I O N FORECLOSURE OF LIENS AND FORFEITURE OF
More information36 East Seventh St., Suite South Main Street
[Cite as Knop Chiropractic, Inc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2003-Ohio-5021.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KNOP CHIROPRACTIC, INC. -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant STATE FARM INSURANCE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 12AP-503 v. : (Ct.Cl. No )
[Cite as Foster v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2013-Ohio-912.] Ron Foster, : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 12AP-503 v. : (Ct.Cl. No. 2011-10771) Ohio
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Reynolds v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., 2015-Ohio-2933.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) ROBERT REYNOLDS C.A. No. 27411 Appellant v. HCR MANORCARE,
More informationMock v. Presbyterian Hospital of Plano, CV (TXCA5)
Mock v. Presbyterian Hospital of Plano, 05-11-00936- CV (TXCA5) JOHN MICHAEL MOCK, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JUDITH I. MOCK, JOSEPH DAVID MOCK, JOHN MICHAEL MOCK, JR., AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC., : et al. Plaintiff-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO.
[Cite as Am. Tax Funding L.L.C. v. Miamisburg, 2011-Ohio-4161.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC., : et al. Plaintiff-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO. 24494 vs. :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as Accettola v. Big Sky Energy, Inc., 2014-Ohio-1340.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO LORRIE J. ACCETTOLA, et al., : O P I N I O N Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More information***Please see Nunc Pro Tunc Entry at 2003-Ohio-826.*** IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY APPEARANCES
[Cite as State v. Clark, 2002-Ohio-6684.] ***Please see Nunc Pro Tunc Entry at 2003-Ohio-826.*** IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: DECEMBER 29, 2010; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-001613-MR & NO. 2009-CA-002101-MR LAURA PHILLIPS APPELLANT APPEALS FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationAUTO CONNECTION, LLC LONNIE PRATHER
[Cite as Auto Connection, L.L.C. v. Prather, 2011-Ohio-6644.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 96564 and 96736 AUTO CONNECTION, LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. This is a death penalty case.
^^ ^^^^f^^^. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELVIN BONNELL, Defendant-Appellant. Case No. 2011-2164 On Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Tichon v. Wright Tool & Forge, 2012-Ohio-3147.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) KENNETH TICHON, et al., C.A. No. 26071 Appellants v. WRIGHT
More informationMADELYN BOHANNON GALLAGHER PIPINO, INC., ET AL.
[Cite as Bohannon v. Pipino, Inc., 2009-Ohio-3469.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92325 MADELYN BOHANNON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. GALLAGHER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY. : Defendant-Appellee. : FILE-STAMPED DATE: : APPEARANCES
[Cite as Amos v. McDonald's Restaurant, 2004-Ohio-5762.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HOCKING COUNTY Linda Diane Amos, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 04CA3 vs. : : McDonald
More information12PREM;^O ^, Q^0 APR CLERK OFCOURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
[State of Ohio ex rel.]david Fox, Relator, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2008 vs. Case No. 08-0626 Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Original Complaint in Mandamus Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT
More informationLED. AUG 2 3 Zq1Z CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CHARLES POWELL, Appellee, vs. JOHN H. RION, ESQ., et al. On Appeal from the Montgomery County Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District Court of Appeals Case No. 24756 Ohio
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ORlGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR * Case No. 2012-0897 THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-30T1, * MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH On Appeal from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CP APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLEE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CP-01387 HARRISON LEWIS, JR. APPELLANT VS. AZHARPASHA APELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLEE
More information3Jn trye 6Upreme Court of bid. Court of Appeals Case Defendants-Appellants. No. CA
3Jn trye 6Upreme Court of bid PIETRO CRISTINO, et al., Case No. 2007-0152 V. Plaintiffs-Appellees, ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, et al., On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. DARRELL SAMPSON, Case No Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the V.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DARRELL SAMPSON, Case No. 10-1561 Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the V. Eighth District Court of Appeals Cuyahoga County, Ohio CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Galloway v. Horkulic, 2003-Ohio-5145.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM GALLOWAY, ) ) CASE NO. 02 JE 52 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ) ) - VS -
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as Harris v. MC Sign Co., 2014-Ohio-2888.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO GARY HARRIS, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff, : (ATTORNEY JOSEPH T. GEORGE, : CASE NO. 2013-L-115
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-APPELLANT AND APPELLEE MAXINE F. SPILLER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MAXINE F. SPILLER, CASE NO. 2008-0900 -vs- Appellant and Appellee Cross-Appeal on Appeal from the Logan County Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District SKY BANK - OHIO BANK
More information{ 1} Appellant, Beck Energy Corporation, appeals the May 8, 2014 judgment of the
[Cite as Beck Energy Corp. v. Zurz, 2015-Ohio-1626.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) BECK ENERGY CORP. C.A. No. 27393 Appellant v. RICHARD ZURZ,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA-00742
E-Filed Document Jun 14 2017 15:21:03 2016-CA-00742-SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2016-CA-00742 CYNDY HOWARTH, Individually, wife, wrongful death beneficiary, and as Executrix
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No
[Cite as Ballreich Bros., Inc. v. Criblez, 2010-Ohio-3263.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY BALLREICH BROS., INC Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No. 05-09-36 v. ROGER
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, 2014-Ohio-4370.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SENIAH CORPORATION JUDGES Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant
More informationABDELMESEH DANIAL GERALD E. LANCASTER, ET AL.
[Cite as Danial v. Lancaster, 2009-Ohio-3599.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92462 ABDELMESEH DANIAL PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GERALD
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Williams v. Wilson-Walker, 2011-Ohio-1805.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95392 THOMAS E. WILLIAMS vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationAPPEAL A FORCIBLE DETAINER JUDGMENT
MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURT How to APPEAL A FORCIBLE DETAINER JUDGMENT Justice Court in Maricopa County June 23, 2005 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FORM (# MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURT Either party may appeal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Clark, 2016-Ohio-39.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID E. CLARK Defendant-Appellant Appellate Case
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as FIA Card Servs. v. Marshall, 2010-Ohio-4244.] STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. fka ) MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., ) ) CASE NO. 10 CA 864
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BONNIEVILLE TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ) CASE NO.: 2008-1293 OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ) ) Appellee ) ON APPEAL FROM THE CUYAHOGA ) COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS, vs. ) EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE. KENNETH R. LEWIS v. LEONARD MIKE CAPUTO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE KENNETH R. LEWIS v. LEONARD MIKE CAPUTO Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 99-0825 W. Frank Brown, III, Chancellor No. E1999-01182-COA-R3-CV
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Roseman Bldg., LLC v. Vision Power Sys., Inc., 2010-Ohio-229.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSEMAN BUILDING CO., LLC JUDGES Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee
More informationCi.ERK i.r; i;l)ll^?t SUPREME COUR! OF Uti10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO. 2010-1283 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. RICK D. WARNER, Relator-Appellee, -vs- INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al. Respondents- Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as PNC Bank, N.A. v. DePalma, 2012-Ohio-2774.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97566 PNC BANK, N.A. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOHN
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Brookdale Senior Living v. Johnson-Wylie, 2011-Ohio-1243.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95129 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationAPR CLERK OF COURT REIVIE COURT OF OHIO. APR Lr^^^ ^^* ^a^.:,e^ ^LIMItML coufii JF onio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
14 ^^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, V. Appellee, On appeal from the Clermont County Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District Supreme Court No. 2013-0540 JAMIE LEE NAEGELE, Court of Appeals
More informationKRYSTAL D RICHARDSON ATTORNEY AND RICHARDSON LAW FIRM LC
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 1689 DAVID R STRAUB SR VERSUS KRYSTAL D RICHARDSON ATTORNEY AND RICHARDSON LAW FIRM LC nq judgment rendered May 2 2012 Appealed from the 19th
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellant Decided: February 26, 2010 * * * * *
[Cite as Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Montgomery, 2010-Ohio-693.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-09-1169
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CLYDE NORRIS, et al., Appellants, V. RICHARD B. MURRAY, et al., Case No. 2012-0292 On Appeal from the Knox County Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 3 " -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ^^ James A. Lucido, 3 " - ^^^ Appellant,. On Appeal from the Stark County Court vs.. of Appeals, Fifth Judicial District Utterback Dental Group, Inc., Court of Appeals Appellee..
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Coakley, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N. Rendered on June 30, 2010
[Cite as Brown Bark II, L.P. v. Coakley, 188 Ohio App.3d 179, 2010-Ohio-3023.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Brown Bark II, L.P., : Appellant, : No. 09AP-950 v. : (C.P.C. No.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 July Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 5 September 2013 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationJAN MARCIA J. MENGEL, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. ANDY BUICK, INC. and ANDY CHEVROLET COMPANY,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ANDY BUICK, INC. and ANDY CHEVROLET COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants, vs. RICARDO PHILLIPS, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees. SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 2006-2338 On Appeal from the Lake
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JACK A. Y. FAKHOURY and MOTOR CITY AUTO WASH, INC., UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2006 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, v No. 256540 Oakland Circuit Court LYNN L. LOWER,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-01079
E-Filed Document Oct 25 2016 15:38:12 2014-CA-01079-COA Pages: 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CA-01079 THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER APPELLANT VS. KIM HAMPTON, INDIVIDUALLY,
More informationBROWN V. BEHLES & DAVIS, 2004-NMCA-028, 135 N.M. 180, 86 P.3d 605
1 BROWN V. BEHLES & DAVIS, 2004-NMCA-028, 135 N.M. 180, 86 P.3d 605 RONALD DALE BROWN and LISA CALLAWAY BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BEHLES & DAVIS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, WILLIAM F. DAVIS, DANIEL J. BEHLES,
More informationTENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm., 2012-Ohio-4367.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. A.J. Rose Manufacturing Company, Relator, v. No.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as McFarren v. Emeritus at Canton, 2013-Ohio-3900.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WANDA L. MCFARREN, IND. AND AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ANGELINE RINKER, DECEASED
More informationThe complaint alleges that the plaintiff leased space at the property to defendants Akari
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO SEVERANCE SPE LEASECO, L.L.C. CASE NO. CV 12 781709 Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs. AKARI TICHAVAKUNDA, M.D., et al. JOURNAL ENTRY Defendants.
More informationO1.tKK OF COURT ^EK COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 ^46. Case No STATE OF OHIO,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 F,^ ^rv ^46 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 11-1473 -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant EMMANUEL HAMPTON, On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. No.2009-CA APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2009-CA-00841 GEORGE M. BOZIER VS. APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE RICHARD J. SCHILLING, JR. AND SW GAMING LLC APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as Summit Cty. Fiscal Officer v. Estate of Barnett, 2009-Ohio-2456.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) SUMMIT COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER C.A. No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
LARSON & LARSON, P.A., HERBERT W. LARSON, and H. WILLIAM LARSON, JR., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Defendants/Petitioners, -vs- Sup. Ct. Case No. SC08-428 TSE INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent. / ON PETITION
More informationLegalFormsForTexas.Com
Information or instructions: Motion & order to retain case on the docket 1. The following motion is required to prevent the case from being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Courts routinely dismiss cases
More informationTHE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 07 F
[Cite as Domadia v. Briggs, 2009-Ohio-6513.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO PRAMILA M. DOMADIA, et al., : OPINION Plaintiffs-Appellees, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2009-G-2899
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
^. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO James Daniel Hughes, et al., : On Appeal from the Franklin Appellees, County Court of Appeal, : Tenth Appellate District V. Court of Appeals Gilbane Building Company, et
More informationL E. ORtGiNAL APR CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No OHIOTELNET.COM, Inc.
ORtGiNAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OHIOTELNET.COM, Inc. Appellants, V. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Case No. 12-0027 Appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Public Utilities
More informationInformation or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form
Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form 1. The following form may be used to request the court to cancel or quash service of citation on a party and
More informationO P I N I O N. Rendered on the 6 th day of January,
[Cite as Auckerman v. Rogers, 2012-Ohio-23.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY VIRGINIA AUCKERMAN : : Appellate Case No. 2011-CA-23 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial Court
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Abels v. Ruf, 2009-Ohio-3003.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CHERYL ABELS, et al. C.A. No. 24359 Appellants v. WALTER RUF, M.D., et al.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, ex rel, SAMUEL MCDOWELL, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 2006-CA-0003 Civil Division - Judge Bateman CONVERGYS
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT NAPOLEON L. CASSIBRY, III
E-Filed Document May 11 2016 15:57:28 2013-CA-01468-COA Pages: 11 IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2013-CA-01468 NAPOLEON L. CASSIBRY, III, as Trustee of the N.L. Cassibry, Jr. Family Trust, Trustee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY
[Cite as Onda, LaBuhn, Rankin & Boggs Co., L.P.A. v. Johnson, 2009-Ohio-4727.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY ONDA, LaBUHN, RANKIN & : BOGGS CO., L.P.A., : :
More informationBROADVOX, LLC LENS ORESTE, ET AL.
[Cite as Broadvox, L.L.C., v. Oreste, 2009-Ohio-3466.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92064 BROADVOX, LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LENS
More information[Cite as James V. Zelch, M.D., Inc. v. Regional MRI of Orlando, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1362.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
[Cite as James V. Zelch, M.D., Inc. v. Regional MRI of Orlando, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1362.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 81826 JAMES V. ZELCH, M.D., INC. : ET AL. : : JOURNAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA-00742
E-Filed Document Mar 9 2017 13:52:14 2016-CA-00742 Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2016-CA-00742 CYNDY HOWARTH, INDIVIDUALLY, WIFE, WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CHAMPAGNE COUNTY COURT, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT and
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Glenda S. Hall-Davis, Appellant, SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 09-0506 V. ON APPEAL FROM THE Honeywell, Inc., CHAMPAGNE COUNTY COURT, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT and Administrator,
More informationCLERK OF COURT SUPREME CCURT OF OHIO MEMORANDUM OF APPELLEE, MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, IN OPPOSITION TO CLAIMED JURISDICTION.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FRANCIS F. JOHNSON, et al., Appellants, vs. KANUBHAI C. PATEL, M.D., et al., CASE NO. 2008-0600 On Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Appellate
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, 2017 - Case No. 2017-0087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. Plaintiff-Appellee, : : On Appeal from the Hamilton County vs.
More informationJain v. Johnson, 922 NE 2d Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist Google Scholar. 922 N.E.2d 1188 (2010)
922 N.E.2d 1188 (2010) Bhagwan Dass JAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth P. JOHNSON, Individually and d/b/a Johnson and Associates, and Robert Kirtland, Defendants-Appellees. No. 2-09-0080. Appellate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 13, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 13, 2005 Session KENT A. SOMMER, ET AL. v. JOHN WOMICK, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-1225 Walter C. Kurtz, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Michael Binning, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) O P I N I O N. Rendered on August 2, 2005
[Cite as NetJets, Inc. v. Binning, 2005-Ohio-3934.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT NetJets, Inc., : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 04AP-1257 v. : (M.C. No. 2003 CVF-015175) Michael
More information