Legal Opinion

Wurth v. Emro Marketing Company

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 30, 1998No. L-97-1158PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Glasser, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the summary judgment motion of defendants-appellees, Emro Marketing Company and R. Daye Harter, and denied the summary judgment motion of plaintiffs-appellants, Jenelle and Steven Wurth. Appellants have raised the following assignments of error for our determination:

“1. The trial court erred in overruling plaintiffs’ petition for disclosure of the grand jury testimony of defendants, in failing to apply the five part test of Petition For Disclosure of Evidence (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 131 [17…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. United States v. Maurice RoseCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
  4. State v. PattersonOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Petition for Disclosure of Evidence Presented to Franklin County Grand Juries in 1970Ohio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Craig v. Lima City Schools Board of EducationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005
  2. Desmond v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. Stakich v. RussoOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. In re PittsOhio Court of Appeals · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API