Legal Opinion

Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 2007No. 2006-0957PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

*168{¶ 1} The issue in this case is whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over appellees, Bruce DiMarco (“DiMarco”), an American citizen, and his wife Ji Hae Linda Yum DiMarco (‘Yum”), a Canadian citizen, with regard to claims brought by appellant, Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. (“Prouse”), a Canadian law firm. Because we conclude that DiMarco was a resident of Ohio, we hold that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over him, and we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals regarding DiMarco. And because the court of appeals did not consider all the facts when it determined…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Mr. K's Foods, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Clark v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Coleman v. ColemanOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Barth v. BarthOhio Supreme Court · 2007

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Conn v. ZakharovCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012
  2. Simmons v. BuddeOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Capital One Bank v. RoseOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  4. Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarcoOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State ex rel. Kerr v. KelseyOhio Court of Appeals · 2019

3 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