Legal Opinion

Wayne Smith Construction Co. v. Wolman, Duberstein & Thompson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1992No. 91-1479PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

I

Appellants contend that Smith Construction is barred by the principle of res judicata from executing on their personal assets in order to satisfy the outstanding debt of the partnership. According to their reading of the South Carolina Court of Appeals decision, the individual partners of Wolman, Duberstein & Thompson were absolved of any liability, joint or several and, therefore, their personal property is not subject to execution. Consequently, appellants maintain that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires that the South Carolina judgment be given…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dayco Corp. v. Fred T. Roberts & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  2. Head v. Henry Tyler Const. Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  3. Marvil Properties v. Fripp Island Development Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1979
  4. Diamond National Corp. v. Thunderbird Hotel, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1969
  5. McCune & McCune v. Mountain Bell TelephoneUtah Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR PartnersCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
  2. Fujimoto v. AuHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Pension Benefit Guaranty, Corporation v. East Dayton Tool and Die CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
  4. Arbor Village Condominium Ass'n v. Arbor Village, Ltd., L.P.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Berns Custom Homes, Inc. v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2021

6 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