Fantozzi v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (10-26-2006)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} John and Margaret Henderson (the "Hendersons") appeal from the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's findings and decision. The Hendersons claim that the court should have awarded them damages for trespass and granted their claims for abuse of process and frivolous conduct. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶ 2} This case arose from a property dispute between the Hendersons and their neighbors, Paulette and Frank Fantozzi (the "Fantozzis"). Paulette Fantozzi is the owner of property located at 9167 Dogwood Circle,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Apel v. KatzOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. MinkOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- Denoyer v. LambOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hartman v. Dept. of Transp., 08ap-599 (2-5-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Martin v. Lake Mohawk Property Owners, 06-Ca-841 (11-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- Kerns v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.Ohio Court of Claims · 2017