Legal Opinion

Sekeres v. Arbaugh

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1987No. 86-1098PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Per curiam

The threshold question presented by this case is whether New York or Ohio law should govern the agreement of the parties. Once this issue is resolved, the question becomes whether the attorney fees provision violates the law of the applicable state. The courts below did not address the conflict of laws issue, but concluded that the provision was valid under Ohio law. We hold that the law of New York applies, and that it permits the use of a contractual attorney fees provision such as the one in question here.

I

In Schulke Radio Productions, Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Schulke Radio Productions, Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. 379 Madison Avenue Inc. v. Stuyvesant Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
  3. Jarvis v. Ashland Oil, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. 379 Madison Avenue, Inc. v. Stuyvesant CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
  5. Weidman v. Tomaselli, New York County Courts1975

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Wong v. PartyGaming Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  2. Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Elgar v. ElgarSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  5. William Eastham v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014

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