Legal Opinion

Williams v. Oeder

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 22, 1995No. Nos. CA94-01-005, CA94-01-007, CA94-02-008 and CA94-02-009PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

William W. Young, Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees, Iseral and Una Bishop (“appellants”), appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendants-appellees and cross-appellants, Barrett Paving Materials, Inc. (“Barrett”), Plainville Concrete Services, Inc. (“Plainville”), and Carl E. Oeder & Sons Sand & Gravel (“Oeder”). The jury found appellees and cross-appellants (“appellees”) not liable for either nuisance or trespass.

Oeder, Barrett, and Plainville operate a sand and gravel processing facility, an asphalt plant, and a concrete plant, respectively. Appellants are two of six…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Krischbaum v. DillonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1979
  4. Snyder v. StanfordOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Eller v. KoehlerOhio Supreme Court · 1903

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1999
  2. Brown v. Whirlpool Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2014
  3. Little Hocking Water Ass'n v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2015
  4. State v. UrbinOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Stephens v. Koch Foods, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2009

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API