Legal Opinion

Seidler v. FKM Advertising, Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided September 21, 2001No. Case No. 99-C.A.-122PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Waite, Judge.

This timely appeal arises from an April 23, 1999 judgment entry of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas adopting a magistrate’s decision that granted appellee commissions on advertising contracts he had procured for FKM Advertising Co., Inc. et al. (“FKM”) while he was employed by them. Appellants argue that the commissions awarded to appellee were future commissions and, thus, were not contemplated as part of appellee’s oral employment agreement. In so doing, appellants misconstrue the case law involving future commissions. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Myers v. GarsonOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Weiper v. W.A. Hill & AssociatesOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Finsterwald-Maiden v. AAA South Central OhioOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mazzitti v. Garden City Group, Inc., 06ap-850 (6-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Clark Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hardlines Design Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API