Ed Stinn Chevrolet, Inc. v. National City Bank
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The central problem presented by this action is which of two innocent parties should bear the loss of this embezzlement-check forger scheme — the thief’s employer or the employer’s bank. To facilitate consideration of this devilishly complex appeal, we will first outline the various legal arguments presented. The second part of our opinion will then apply the controlling state law to the curious facts at hand.
*224I
In its appeal to this court, appellant National City challenges the appellate ruling in two broad propositions of law. In the first, appellant argues that the court of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hummel v. HummelOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- Kish v. Central National Insurance GroupOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Gresham State Bank v. O & K Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Salzl v. Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1980
- Border City Savings & Loan Ass'n v. MoanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Citibank, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Zions First National Bank v. Clark Clinic Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
- Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Dev. Servs., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
- Hinkle v. Cornwell Quality Tool Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1987
- G.F.D. Enterprises, Inc. v. NyeOhio Supreme Court · 1988
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.