Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1987No. Nos. 86-597 and 86-605PublishedCited by 39 opinions

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

  1. Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Light v. Ohio UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Ruwe v. Board of Township TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Winwood v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. McKinney v. Hartz & Restle Realtors, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987

34 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