Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sutton Bank v. Progressive Polymers, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2024Co. v. Galatis, 2003-Ohio-5849 , ¶ 11-13; accord Sutton Bank v. Progressive Polymers, L.L.C., 2020-Ohio-5101, ¶ 15 (construing contract against the drafter is a secondary rule of construction employed when a contract is ambiguous). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cadle v. D'Amico
green
2 sentences2023Cadle v. D’Amico, 2016-Ohio-4747 , 66 N.E.3d 1184 , ¶ 33 (7th Dist.) (“Construing a contract against the drafter is a secondary rule of contract construction, and is applicable when the primary rules of contract construction * * * fail to clarify the meaning of the contract.”). {¶44} The determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. 2023Cadle v. D’Amico, 2016-Ohio-4747 , 66 N.E.3d 1184 , ¶ 33 (7th Dist.) (“Construing a contract against the drafter is a secondary rule of contract construction, and is applicable when the primary rules of contract construction * * * fail to clarify the meaning of the contract.”). {¶44} The determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. | 6 | 2017–2023 |
Ohio Historical Society v. General Maintenance & Engineering Co.
green
2 sentences2017Co. , 65 Ohio App.3d 139 , 146, 583 N.E.2d 340 (10th Dist.1989). {¶ 19} If parol evidence fails to clarify the meaning of the contract, then the contract is strictly construed against the drafter; interpreting the written instrument against the drafter is a secondary rule of contract construction. 2017Co. , 65 Ohio App.3d 139 , 146, 583 N.E.2d 340 (10th Dist.1989). {¶ 19} If parol evidence fails to clarify the meaning of the contract, then the contract is strictly construed against the drafter; interpreting the written instrument against the drafter is a secondary rule of contract construction. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Bond v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Bond v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0178, 2017-Ohio-7754, ¶ 23-24 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pure Oil Co. v. Kindall
green
2 sentences2017"In case of doubt, it is said, the conveyance is to be construed most strongly as against the grantor, or in favor of the grantee on the theory, it seems, that the words used are to be regarded as the words of the grantor rather than of the grantee." Pure Oil Co. v. Kindall , 116 Ohio St. 188 , 202-203, 156 N.E. 119 (1927) (in cases where the contractual language is ambiguous and the drafter is unknown). {¶ 20} The sole issue is whether any mineral interest was conveyed to the grantee in the 1966 general warranty deed. 2017"In case of doubt, it is said, the conveyance is to be construed most strongly as against the grantor, or in favor of the grantee on the theory, it seems, that the words used are to be regarded as the words of the grantor rather than of the grantee." Pure Oil Co. v. Kindall , 116 Ohio St. 188 , 202-203, 156 N.E. 119 (1927) (in cases where the contractual language is ambiguous and the drafter is unknown). {¶ 20} The sole issue is whether any mineral interest was conveyed to the grantee in the 1966 general warranty deed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Envision Waste Servs., L.L.C. v. Medina
green
2 sentences2017Cadle v. D'Amico , 2016-Ohio-4747 , 66 N.E.3d 1184 , ¶ 33 (7th Dist.) ("Construing a contract against the drafter is a secondary rule of contract construction, and is applicable when the primary rules of contract construction * * * fail to clarify the meaning of the contract."); Envision Waste Services, LLC v. County of Medina , 2017-Ohio-351 , 83 N.E.3d 270 , ¶ 15. 2017Cadle v. D'Amico , 2016-Ohio-4747 , 66 N.E.3d 1184 , ¶ 33 (7th Dist.) ("Construing a contract against the drafter is a secondary rule of contract construction, and is applicable when the primary rules of contract construction * * * fail to clarify the meaning of the contract."); Envision Waste Services, LLC v. County of Medina , 2017-Ohio-351 , 83 N.E.3d 270 , ¶ 15. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.