Legal Opinion

Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 31, 1994No. Nos. 65121, 65838PublishedCited by 278 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Porter, Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants Kenneth Koos, Brenda Koos, Michael Baglia and Carol Baglia appeal from summary judgment entered against them in their shareholder derivative suit (Civ.R. 23.1) against the defendants-appellees Cellwave, Inc. (n.k.a. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.) and ten other shareholders of Cellwave, a closely held Ohio corporation. Plaintiffs’ sole assignment of error asserts that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we find no merit…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Mitseff v. WheelerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Murphy v. City of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993

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

3Cited by278 opinions

  1. Karcich v. StuartDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Zurz v. 770 West Broad Aga, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. White v. WestfallOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Broadnax v. Greene Credit ServiceOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. Byrd v. Arbors E. & Subacute Rehab. Ctr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014

273 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