Legal Opinion
Manigault v. Ford Motor Company
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 28, 1999No. 74266PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dyke, Presiding Judge.
Defendant Ford Motor Company appeals from the judgment of the trial court that granted plaintiffs Virginia and Leon Manigault relief from a defense verdict on the basis of a fraud allegedly perpetrated upon the court. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order granting relief from judgment.
On April 3, 1993, Leon and Virginia Manigault were involved in a motor vehicle accident in a 1987 Ford Crown Victoria immediately after starting the vehicle. Leon Manigault suffered a brain hemorrhage and is comatose. On March 24, 1995, after the Manigaults no longer had the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- National Amusements, Inc. v. City of SpringdaleOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Doe v. Trumbull County Children Services BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Coulson v. CoulsonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
- LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. Kelly, 07 Ma 27 (11-16-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- Gursky v. Gursky, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Banfield v. BrodellOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.