Legal Opinion

Mantua Manufacturing Co. v. Commerce Exchange Bank

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1996No. 94-2139PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

This appeal invites us to determine whether the trial court correctly refused to grant appellant Commerce’s motion for a directed verdict *4and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The standards applied to motions for directed verdict and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are identical. Nickell v. Gonzalez (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 136, 137, 17 OBR 281, 282, 477 N.E.2d 1145, 1147, citing Ayers v. Woodard (1957), 166 Ohio St. 138, 1 O.O.2d 377, 140 N.E.2d 401, paragraph one of the syllabus. Specifically, either motion should be granted when “the trial court, after…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Nickell v. GonzalezOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Center Ridge Ganley, Inc. v. StinnOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Gibler v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1846
  4. Centrifugal Casting Machine Co., Inc. v. American Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Stonehenge Land Co. v. Beazer Homes Investments, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Mid-America Tire v. PTZ TradingOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. O'Bannon Meadows Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. O'Bannon Properties, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. Fehrenbach v. O'MalleyOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API