Legal Opinion
Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 26, 1989No. 88-1337PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
This case involves our consideration of the proper scope, application and usage of R.C. 2317.48, which states in its entirety:
“When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are necessary to procure the discovery sought. Unless…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Arcell v. Ashland Chemical Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
- In re BolandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1978
- In re the Petition of Gary Construction, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1983
- Levin v. Cleveland Welding Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1963
- Driver v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Riverview Health Inst., L.L.C. v. KralOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- Benner v. Walker Ambulance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Keenan v. Adecco Emp. Servs., Inc., Unpublished Decision (7-17-2006)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Marsalis v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
- Colegate v. LohbeckOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.