Meltzer v. Hotel Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
CONNELL, District Judge.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, does not dispute the fact that the Hotel Corporation of America, the named defendant in this cause, did not own or operate the Hotel Cleveland, or have control of its lobby, at the time of the injury. Rather, he avers that since the hotel was actually operated by the Hotel Corporation of Cleveland, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the named defendant, it (the named defendant), by means of an evasive answer, sought to and did mislead the plaintiff as to the actual…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Curtis v. ConnlySupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- C. S. Grandey v. Pacific Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
- Albert C. Peterman v. Indian Motorcycle Company, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1954
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic RidesArizona Supreme Court · 1990
- Meredith v. United Air LinesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1966
- Galuppi v. VieleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
- E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1985
- Jacobs v. McCloskey & Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1966
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.