8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Galehouse Construction Company v. Winklergreen2 sentences2010Co., Inc. v. Winkler (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 300, 303 , 714 N.E.2d 954 . {¶ 45} In the present case, the trial court found that rescission was not an appropriate remedy because the parties had fully performed their duties “except for determining the amount of prepayment consideration.” Rather, the court deemed reformation to be warranted “where, as here, one party believes a contract correctly integrates the agreement and the other party is aware that it does not.” {¶ 46} Based upon this court’s de novo review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in finding a unilateral mist 2010Co., Inc. v. Winkler (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 300, 303 , 714 N.E.2d 954 . {¶ 45} In the present case, the trial court found that rescission was not an appropriate remedy because the parties had fully performed their duties “except for determining the amount of prepayment consideration.” Rather, the court deemed reformation to be warranted “where, as here, one party believes a contract correctly integrates the agreement and the other party is aware that it does not.” {¶ 46} Based upon this court’s de novo review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in finding a unilateral mist | 1 | 3 |
425 Beecher, L.L.C. v. Unizan Bank, National Ass'ngreen2 sentences2016Assn., 186 Ohio App.3d 214 , 2010-Ohio-412 , ¶ 44 (10th Dist.), quoting Galehouse Constr. 2016Assn., 186 Ohio App.3d 214 , 2010-Ohio- 412, 927 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 44 (10th Dist.), quoting Galehouse Constr. | 1 | 2 |
Coates v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences1986Brown, J., dissenting); 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure (1973) 536-537, Section 2955: “The drafting standard established by [federal] Rule 65(d) is that an ordinary person reading the court’s order should be able to ascertain from the document itself exactly what conduct is proscribed.” Appellant argues that the language “any acts intended to harass the Plaintiff or its employees or customers” is “too vague to be understood.” In support of its position appellant cites Coates v. Cincinnati (1971), 402 U.S. 611 [58 O.O. 2d 481], in which the Supreme Court struck down a municipal 1986Brown, J., dissenting); 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure (1973) 536-537, Section 2955: “The drafting standard established by [federal] Rule 65(d) is that an ordinary person reading the court’s order should be able to ascertain from the document itself exactly what conduct is proscribed.” Appellant argues that the language “any acts intended to harass the Plaintiff or its employees or customers” is “too vague to be understood.” In support of its position appellant cites Coates v. Cincinnati (1971), 402 U.S. 611 [58 O.O. 2d 481], in which the Supreme Court struck down a municipal | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Century 21 American Landmark, Inc. v. McIntyre
green
2 sentences2006Century 21 Landmark, Inc. v. McIntrye (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 126 , 427 N.E.2d 534 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 34} As explained in 13 Williston on Contracts § 38:21 (4th Ed.): {¶ 35} "It has been questioned whether an agreement in which the promise of one party is conditional on his own or the other party's satisfaction contains the elements of a contract-whether the agreement is not illusory in character because conditioned upon the whim or caprice of the party to be satisfied. 2006Century 21 Landmark, Inc. v. McIntrye (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 126 , 427 N.E.2d 534 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 34} As explained in 13 Williston on Contracts § 38:21 (4th Ed.): {¶ 35} "It has been questioned whether an agreement in which the promise of one party is conditional on his own or the other party's satisfaction contains the elements of a contract-whether the agreement is not illusory in character because conditioned upon the whim or caprice of the party to be satisfied. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha
green
2 sentences1995In Queen City Farms, supra, the Supreme Court of Washington discussed extrinsic evidence as to the mutual intent of the parties to a nonnegotiated term of an insurance policy and observed that “while evidence of the parties’ mutual intent may be helpful in some contexts, we have recognized that sometimes language in standard policies does not involve mutual negotiations between the insurers and the insureds. * * * Similarly, as the New Jersey Supreme Court noted, the qualified pollution exclusion was drafted by the insurance industry; there was no participation by insureds in the drafting of t 1995In Queen City Farms, supra, the Supreme Court of Washington discussed extrinsic evidence as to the mutual intent of the parties to a nonnegotiated term of an insurance policy and observed that “while evidence of the parties’ mutual intent may be helpful in some contexts, we have recognized that sometimes language in standard policies does not involve mutual negotiations between the insurers and the insureds. * * * Similarly, as the New Jersey Supreme Court noted, the qualified pollution exclusion was drafted by the insurance industry; there was no participation by insureds in the drafting of t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.