Cuyahoga Baking Co. v. Tomasouskas
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP COURT.
The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.
PUNK, J.
Assuming that the evidence brings this case within the class_ of false and fraudulent representations, which require the complaining party to prove his claim by something more than a mere preponderance of the evidence and which is designated in the decisions as “clear and convincing” evidence, as set forth and distinguished in the case of Bates v. Firestone, 20 O. App. 51 pg. 66 to 71, and that the charge as to the amount of evidence was therefore erroneous, the question still remains as to whether or not the verdict…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bates v. FirestoneOhio Court of Appeals · 1923
- Franklin Bond & Investment Co. v. LongOhio Court of Appeals · 1923
- Buschelmann v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1923