West v. P.D.G. Development, Inc.
Akron Municipal Court
1Opinion of the Court
Elinore Marsh Stormer, Judge.
This case came before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court finds that defendant P.D.G. Development, Inc. is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because a genuine issue of material fact exists and reasonable minds could differ as to the outcome.
The parties do not dispute the facts of the underlying transaction. On August 12, 1991, plaintiffs Billie Jean West et al. agreed to purchase certain real *27property, known as Sublot 76, and signed a purchase agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs paid a $5,000 deposit to defendant…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marfield v. Cincinnati, D. & T. Traction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1924
- Parente v. DayOhio Court of Appeals · 1968
- Berry v. Cleveland Trust Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935
- Karl Kiefer MacHine Co. v. Henry Niemes, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1948
- Crawley v. . TimberlakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1843
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.