Legal Opinion
McBennett v. Piskur
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 30, 1965No. 39183PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The issue of fraud in the inducement is triable to the court. Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Rd. Co., 155 Ohio St. 185.
The Court of Appeals for Lorain County, in deciding that the issue of fraud in the factum must be submitted to the jury, cited Perry v. M. O’Neil & Co., 78 Ohio St. 200; Flynn v. Sharon Steel Corp., 142 Ohio St. 145; Meyer v. Meyer, 153 Ohio St. 408; Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Rd. Co., supra; and McCuskey v. Budnick, 165 Ohio St. 533; stating that those cases “directly or inf eren tially” sustained its position.
Perry v. M. O’Neil S Co., supra, involved fraud in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Girard v. St. Louis Car Wheel Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. v. WebbCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Meyer v. MeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Castle v. DanielsOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
- Klever v. StowOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- Hine v. Dayton Speedway Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Kight v. Miller, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.