Riley v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, J.
Appellant presents for its main objection to the judgment of the lower courts the legal question of the applicability of the covenant not to sue as it relates to a party in its position. The city maintains that if there was any duty owing to the appellee by it that it was at best secondary to that of the three defendants dismissed as a result of the execution of said covenant. Reliance upon this covenant by the appellant is misplaced, not only for the reason that the city was not a party to the negotiation, which the following language shows was not completely dispositive of appellee’s claim,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Bello v. ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1922
- Boles v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
- Ragone v. Vitali & Beltrami, Jr., Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
- Grossnickle v. Village of GermantownOhio Supreme Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Murphy v. Carrollton Manufacturing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- Pesek v. University Neurologists Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Freeman v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Woodrum v. JohnsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2001
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.