Legal Opinion

Hageman v. Cleveland Trust Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1976No. 75-109PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

This action concerns the 1969 trust agreement. If plaintiff’s success or failure on the merits of this case could not affect his status as “virtually disinherited,” then his interest would be insufficient to maintain the action (State, ex rel. Dallman, v. Court of Common Pleas [1973], 35 Ohio St. 2d 176), and the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint is wholly proper. Admittedly, plaintiff has no such interest if the trust, in fact, is valid, so we need not consider or decide that question.

Thus, we direct our inquiry to the significance of the trust agreement, even if it failed to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1973

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Clymer v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  2. In re Guardianship of LombardoOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Rushford v. Firstar Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  4. In Re EleyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2005
  5. In re Guardianship of LombardoOhio Supreme Court · 1999

4 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