Legal Opinion
Joyce v. General Motors Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 28, 1990No. 88-2049PublishedCited by 256 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The first issue for our disposition is whether the court of appeals properly construed the trial court’s action as a response to defendants’ Civ. R. 12(B)(6) motion, rather than as a response to defendants’ motion for a directed verdict.
Defendants-appellants contend that it is error to treat a directed verdict entered at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case as a motion to dismiss under Civ. R. 12(B)(6).
Civ. R. 50(A)(4) provides in part:
“When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Gottschalk v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Agricultural Ins. v. ConstantineOhio Supreme Court · 1944
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by256 opinions
- State ex rel. Parsons v. FlemingOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. PontiousOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Morehead v. ConleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
251 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.