Legal Opinion

Rubin v. Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided October 27, 2000No. C-2-93-325Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

GEORGE C. SMITH, District Judge.

Plaintiff asserts securities fraud and common law fraud in connection with a loan he extended to a company that developed the “TENS” unit biotherapy system. Defendant moves for summary judgment (Doc. 102). For the reasons that follow the Court grants defendants’ motion.

I

The remaining plaintiff, Robert M. Rubin, is, in his own words, a sophisticated investor. Defendant Richard Barnhart is an attorney who practices law in Columbus, Ohio, and is a partner in the law firm Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn (“SZ & D”), which is also a defendant in this…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990

12 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