Teramano v. Teramano
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Neither the allegations of the petition nor the representations of prospective proof contained in the opening statement by plaintiff’s counsel, considered together and in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, make this case one of willful or malicious tort.
“Malicious” means “indulging or exercising malice; harboring ill will or enmity.” Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2 Ed.
If we had such a case before us we might agree with the opinion in the excellently reasoned case styled Dunlap v. Dunlap, 84 N. H. 352, 150 A. 905, 71 A. L. R. 1055, where, at page 361, the following appears:
“ *…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dunlap v. DunlapSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
- Cowgill, Adm'r v. Boock, Adm'rOregon Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by58 opinions
- Hebel v. Hebel Ex Rel. HebelAlaska Supreme Court · 1967
- Scholler v. SchollerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Streenz v. StreenzArizona Supreme Court · 1970
- Jackson v. Butler County Board of County CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Winn v. GilroyOregon Supreme Court · 1984
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.