Legal Opinion

Bowman v. Stott, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 31, 2003No. 21568UnpublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Cheryl Bowman, has appealed from an order granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee, John E. Stott. This Court reverses and remands.

I

{¶ 2} Bowman and Stott were unmarried and lived together at a home owned by Stott. Approximately nine months prior to the incident which forms the basis of this action, Stott purchased a Rottweiler dog named Sampson. Five months later, Bowman was bitten by the dog. On or about July 8, 2001, the dog again bit Bowman, this time causing severe injury and prompting this action.

{¶ 3} By initial and amended…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Murphy v. City of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Norris v. Ohio Standard Oil Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Anderson v. CeccardiOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hill v. Hughes, 06ca2917 (6-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Brown v. TerrellOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  3. Hall v. ZambranoOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Krzywicki v. GallettiOhio Court of Appeals · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API