Legal Opinion
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 7, 1999No. 97-1998PublishedCited by 243 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The determinative issues in this case are (1) whether it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of Karen Bauernschmidt and Arter & Hadden as to Siegel’s claim of tortious interference with contract, *176and (2) whether it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of Karen Bauernschmidt and Arter & Hadden as to Siegel’s claim of misappropriation of trade secrets.
Tortious interference with contract. We reaffirm the elements of the tort of tortious interference with contract as enumerated in paragraph two of the syllabus of Kenty v. Transamerica…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Reid, Johnson, Downes, Andrachik & Webster v. LansberryOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Service, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- Levine v. BeckmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by243 opinions
- Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. Proserv, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Onyeoziri v. SpivokDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2008
238 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.