Legal Opinion

Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 2009No. 2008-0200Published

1Opinion of the Court

[Cite as Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89,

2009-Ohio-2057.] OLYMPIC HOLDING COMPANY, L.L.C., ET AL., APPELLEES, v. ACE LIMITED ET AL.; ACE CAPITAL TITLE REINSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. [Cite as Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89,

2009-Ohio-2057.] Statute of frauds — Promissory estoppel — Damages — The breach of a promise to sign an agreement does not remove the agreement from the signing requirement of the statute of frauds — A party may not use promissory estoppel to bar the opposing party from asserting the affirmative defense of the statute…

2Cases cited71 opinions

  1. Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. " MOORE" BURGER, INC. v. Phillips Petroleum CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Hummel v. HummelOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. FrantzOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

66 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