Legal Opinion

Crawford v. Ribbon Technology Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 11, 2001No. 00AP-488PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

George, Judge.

Peter Harwood and Buckley, King & Bluso, appellants (“Harwood”), appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which adopted the magistrate’s decision awarding defendant-appellee, Ribbon Technology Corporation (“Ribtec”), expenses and attorney fees, as a result of frivolous conduct by Harwood.

The facts underlying the sanctions against Harwood are as follows. Harwood represented Richard A. Crawford, plaintiff, in a suit against defendants, alleging that Ribtec breached employment and deferred compensation agreements. After mandatory arbitration, two awards…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Ron Scheiderer & Associates v. City of LondonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Lesher v. KainradOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Ivywood Apartments v. BennettOhio Court of Appeals · 1976
  5. Murrell v. Williamsburg Local School DistrictOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bennett v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Spinner v. BargerOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. Warino v. Worldwide News Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API