Legal Opinion

Berjian v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1978No. 77-724PublishedCited by 77 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

Before this court can reach the major issue in this cause .concerning the enforceability of the limitation-of-liability clause contained in Ohio Bell’s directory-advertising agreement, the court must first determine several preliminary issues concerning the directory-advertising agreement itself.

The first preliminary issue revolves around whether the directory-advertising agreement constituted the contract made between the parties. As opposed to the directory advertising agreement, appellees urge before this court in their initial proposition of law that Doctor Berjian may have entered into a…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hawkins v. IvyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phœnix Railway Co. v. Grant Bros. Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Bates v. SouthgateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Allen v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Wille v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1976

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

3Cited by77 opinions

  1. Collins v. Click Camera & Video, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Discount Fabric House of Racine, Inc. v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Nilavar v. OsbornOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. Costner Consulting Co. v. U.S. BancorpOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. Milligan v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978

72 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