Legal Opinion
Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 3, 1996No. 95-464PublishedCited by 222 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.
In this case, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment. For the following reasons, we believe the motion should have been granted and consequently reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Appellant initially contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for relief from judgment without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. This issue was discussed in Coulson v. Coulson (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12, 16, 5 OBR 73, 76-77, 448 N.E.2d 809, 812. In Coulson, this court adopted the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- Adomeit v. BaltimoreOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
- Colley v. BazellOhio Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by222 opinions
- State ex rel. Richard v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
- Porter v. Frutta Del Mondo, Ltd., 08ap-69 (7-17-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- National City Bank v. RiniOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- Perry v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
217 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.