Legal Opinion
Loukinas v. Roto-Rooter Services Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 23, 2006No. C-050354PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Gorman, Judge.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellants, David and Gail Loukinas, d.b.a. D & G Automotive (“D & G Auto”), appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Roto-Rooter Services Company, on D & G Auto’s claims seeking recovery for (1) Roto-Rooter’s negligent installation of an oil-interceptor system, (2) personal injuries sustained by Gail Loukinas, (3) David Loukinas’s loss of consortium, (4) defamation, and (5) payment due from RotoRooter on account. In a single assignment of error contesting the summary judgment, D & G Auto raises three issues:…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Knapp v. Edwards LaboratoriesOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Doe v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. City of Mayfield HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Cincinnati v. HarrisonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Northpointe Properties v. Charter One BankOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. StitesOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
- Thomas v. Cohr, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.