Legal Opinion

Depugh v. Mead Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 30, 1992No. 1798PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harsha, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Ray E. and Jo Ann DePugh, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Mead Corporation, defendant-appellee, on a complaint which sought recovery on breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit.

Appellants assign the following error:

“I. The trial court erred in granting the Mead Corporation’s motion for summary judgment since the contract at issue herein did not fall within the Statute of Frauds.”

On July 13, 1990, appellants filed a complaint naming appellee as the defendant and setting forth claims of relief for breach of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mitseff v. WheelerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Bostic v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Latina v. Woodpath Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Kittleson v. Grynberg Petroleum CompanyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Lewis v. MathesOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Schlabach v. KondikOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. Tower 10, L.L.C. v. 10 W. Broad Owner, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. Connor Murphy v. Applewood Vill. Homeowners, Ca2007-09-213 (3-30-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009

10 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