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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flaugher v. Cone Automatic Machine Co.green2 sentences2011In Pottschmidt at ¶31 , citing Flaugher, 30 Ohio St.3d at 64 , this Court stated that “[w]hen a buyer and seller share significant features such as the same employees, a common name, or the same management, the buyer can be construed to be a mere continuation of the seller.” To the extent that this language implies the adoption by 9 this Court of the expanded mere continuation exception rejected by the Supreme Court in Welco, we disavow it, and hold that the language has no applicability to the consideration of the mere continuation exception to successor liability. {¶19} Thus, in light of the 1996In Welco, the court emphasized that the basis of the traditional mere-continuation exception “is the continuation of the corporate entity, not the business operation, after the transaction.” Id., 67 Ohio St.3d at 350, 617 N.E.2d at 1134 ; see, also, Flaugher v. Cone Automatic Machine Co. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 60 , 30 OBR 165, 507 N.E.2d 331 . | 2 | 3 |
Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Companiesgreen2 sentences2011For these reasons, we decline to expand the traditional exceptions to the general rule of nonliability of successor corporations[.]” Welco, 67 Ohio St.3d at 348-349 . {¶14} Thus, under current binding Supreme Court precedent, the mere continuation exception is limited and narrow. 2011The basis of the mere continuation exception “is the continuation of the corporate entity, not the business operation, after the transaction.” Id. at 350 . | 1 | 3 |
Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co.green2 sentences1991Co. (1976), 397 Mich. 406 , 244 N.W.2d 873 , the Michigan Supreme Court held with respect to the mere-continuation exception that the traditional *12 requirement of continuity of shareholders was not crucial and that the relevant factors were (1) the basic continuity of the seller’s enterprise, including the retention of key personnel, assets, physical location, general business operations, and name; (2) the seller’s cessation of ordinary business operations, liquidation and dissolution soon after the sale; (3) the purchaser’s assumption of the liabilities and obligations of the seller necessa 1991Co. (1976), 397 Mich. 406 , 244 N.W.2d 873 , the Michigan Supreme Court held with respect to the mere-continuation exception that the traditional *12 requirement of continuity of shareholders was not crucial and that the relevant factors were (1) the basic continuity of the seller’s enterprise, including the retention of key personnel, assets, physical location, general business operations, and name; (2) the seller’s cessation of ordinary business operations, liquidation and dissolution soon after the sale; (3) the purchaser’s assumption of the liabilities and obligations of the seller necessa | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ray v. Alad Corp.
green
2 sentences1991In Ray v. Alad, Corp. (1977), 19 Cal.3d 22 , 136 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 560 P.2d 3 , the California Supreme Court abandoned the traditional rule and established what has come to be known as the “product-line” approach, under which the purchaser of the assets of a business that continues to manufacture the same product line assumes liability for its predecessor’s products. 1991In Ray v. Alad, Corp. (1977), 19 Cal.3d 22 , 136 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 560 P.2d 3 , the California Supreme Court abandoned the traditional rule and established what has come to be known as the “product-line” approach, under which the purchaser of the assets of a business that continues to manufacture the same product line assumes liability for its predecessor’s products. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
cluster 321143
green
2 sentences1986In Cyr [supra] * * * the Court held that the policy reasons for strict liability in tort were cause for extension of the mere continuation exception.” Id. at 450-451, 244 N.W. 2d at 893 . “* * * Cyr is subject to criticism. 1986In Cyr [supra] * * * the Court held that the policy reasons for strict liability in tort were cause for extension of the mere continuation exception.” Id. at 450-451, 244 N.W. 2d at 893 . “* * * Cyr is subject to criticism. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.