Legal Opinion

Vahila v. Hall

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1997No. 95-2196PublishedCited by 723 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The primary issue in this case is whether the trial court and court of appeals properly concluded that appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the claims set forth in appellants’ legal malpractice complaint. For the reasons that follow, we find that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of appellees. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Initially, we note that the trial court and court of appeals determined that appellees were entitled to summary judgment because appellants failed…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Mitseff v. WheelerOhio Supreme Court · 1988

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by723 opinions

  1. Vahila v. HallOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Baiko v. MaysOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Fritz ByersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  4. Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Environmental Network Corp. v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 2008

718 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