Legal Opinion

Landis v. Grange Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1998No. 97-707PublishedCited by 111 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

Two separate issues are raised in the controversy before us: (1) whether Landis is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(A) and (2) whether, Grange is liable for the attorney fees that Landis incurred pursuant to a contingency fee contract. For the reasons that follow, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative, and address each question separately.

R.C. 1343.03(A) states that “when money becomes due and payable upon any * * * instrument of writing * * * and upon all judgments * * * for the payment of money arising out of…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Pembaur v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Kraly v. VannewkirkOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Royal Electric Construction Corp. v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co. v. TomanskiOhio Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by111 opinions

  1. Ohayon v. Safeco InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. The Lincoln Electric Company, Plaintiff-Appellee v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  3. Smith v. WunschOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Wagner v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Miller v. GunckleOhio Supreme Court · 2002

106 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