Legal Opinion
Dunn v. Zimmerman
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 18, 1994No. 93-574PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The question certified for our review is “whether a partner may maintain an action for breach of a fiduciary duty by one partner against another.” Answering the certified question in this case also requires this court to consider in what circumstances a formal accounting is required in an action at law between partners.
Partners in Ohio owe a fiduciary duty to one another. Arpadi v. First MSP Corp. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 453, 628 N.E.2d 1335, paragraph two of the syllabus. This duty would be meaningless without the existence of a remedy for its breach. Nevertheless, we have never explicitly…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lorain National Bank v. Saratoga ApartmentsOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
- Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. North Supply Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
- Arpadi v. First MSP Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Lau v. Valu-Bilt Homes, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1978
- Hanes v. GiambroneOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Nilavar v. OsbornOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- GCM, Inc. v. Kentucky Central Life InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
- Trinity Health System v. Mdx Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- DiPasquale v. CostasOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.