Mitchell v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
The sole question before this court is whether appellee’s opening statement and the allegations of the amended complaint state a cause of action against Avon Lake. We hold that the directed verdict in favor of Avon Lake was not erroneous.
In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that “[a] trial court should exercise great caution in sustaining a motion for a directed verdict on the opening statement of counsel; it must be clear that all the facts expected to be proved, and those that have been stated, do not constitute a cause of action or a defense, and the statement must be liberally…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- Light v. Ohio UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Ruwe v. Board of Township TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
- Winwood v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- McKinney v. Hartz & Restle Realtors, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.