Legal Opinion
Heinz v. Steffen
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 28, 1996No. 95-CA-106PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Brogan, Presiding Judge.
The present case is before the court on the appeal of Grace Steffen from the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against her. The claims against Steffen arise from her participation in a partnership called Mobile Telecom Enterprises (“MTE”), and may be summarized as follows. Around 1983, several individuals wished to enter into the cellular phone system business and formed a corporation called ATI. Elden Heinz, one of the ATI stockholders, also operated his own business, E & J Communications (“E & J”). Because ATI needed additional financial backing,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Doner v. SnappOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Peter L. Battista, Jr. v. Lebanon Trotting Association, and John J. Carlo, Peter L. Battista, Jr. v. Lebanon Trotting Association, and John J. CarloCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
- Royal Electric Construction Corp. v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1995
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Westbrock v. Western Ohio Health Care Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Donegal Mutual Insurance v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. FarinacciOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- In Re Estate of IvanchakOhio Court of Appeals · 2006