Legal Opinion

Ruvolo v. Homovich

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 24, 2002No. 80896, Accelerated DocketPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Colleen Conway Cooney, Judge.

{¶ 1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the lower court, the briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel.

{¶ 2} Plaintiff-appellant William Ruvolo appeals from the trial court’s granting summary judgment in favor of Taco Bell Corporation, Keystone Foods Corporation, and Ameriservice Food Distribution, Inc. We find no merit to the appeal, and therefore we affirm.

{¶ 3} On August 6, 1998, Ruvolo purchased two chicken gordita sandwiches from Taco Bell. While eating the second sandwich, he…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Mathews v. Maysville Seafoods, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Mitchell v. T.G.I. Friday'sOhio Court of Appeals · 2000

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
  3. White v. StottsOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Henry Spack Serv. v. Pietrzak, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2005)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Stefansky v. Cantina Laredo Columbus/Nashville, L.P. c/o CT Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API