Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Xrg, Inc., 06ap-839 (6-21-2007)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 21, 2007No. 06AP-839PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, William Taylor, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the summary judgment motion of defendants-appellees, XO Communications, Inc. and XO Interactive, Inc. Because no genuine issue of material fact exists, and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

{¶ 2} Plaintiff filed his original complaint on June 17, 2004, naming as defendants XRG, Inc., FAX.COM, Inc., Impact Marketing Solutions, LLC, Data Research Systems, Inc. ("DRS"), XO Communications, Inc., XO Ohio, Inc., John Doe, and Jane Doe(s).…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Vahila v. HallOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Grady v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Coventry Township v. EckerOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Gurary v. John Carroll Univ.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024
  2. Morantz v. Ortiz, 07ap-597 (3-11-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Commons at Royal Landing, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Cardinal Health 108, L.L.C. v. Columbia Asthma & Allergy Clinic, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. RBS Citizens, N.A. v. KrasnovOhio Court of Appeals · 2014

5 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