Legal Opinion
Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided March 6, 2008No. 86324PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Anthony 0. Calabrese Jr., Judge.
{¶ 1} Upon remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, we are asked to determine whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant Ji Hae Linda Yum DiMarco (Yum) pursuant to R.C. 2307.382, Ohio’s long-arm statute. We are also asked to address the assignments of error that were declared moot in our original opinion. See Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco, 116 Ohio St.3d 167, 2007-Ohio-5753, 876 N.E.2d 1226, reversing in part and vacating in part Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco, Cuyahoga App. No. 86324, 2006-Ohio-1538, 2006 WL…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Conn v. ZakharovCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012
- Simmons v. BuddeOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
- Mancz v. McHenryOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
- Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarcoOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- Richard Conn, Jr. v. Vladimir ZakharovCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012