Legal Opinion
Legros v. Tarr
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 28, 1989No. 88-279PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The controlling issue presented by this case is whether appellants are entitled to recover a commission, or finder’s fee, in quantum meruit, from appellees, based upon the theory of quasi-contract, or contract implied in law. As to one of the appellants, Butcher & Singer, we answer such query in the affirmative and thus, in this respect, reverse the court of appeals. However, we affirm the court of appeals’ holding that appellant Legros, due to his employment relationship with appellant Butcher & Singer, is not entitled herein to a share of the finder’s fees awarded by the trial court.
As a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hummel v. HummelOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- Bradkin v. LevertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
- Lane — Real Estate Department Store, Inc. v. Lawlet Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Simon v. Electrospace Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Minichiello v. Royal Business Funds Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1966
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Tewarson v. SimonOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
- United National Insurance Company v. Sst Fitness CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- Shaw v. J. Pollock & Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Landskroner v. LandskronerOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Camp St. Mary's Ass'n of the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Otterbein HomesOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.