Search for: "Bell v. Ohio" Results 21 - 40 of 301
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2007, 8:43 am
Today the CA6 came out with its first decision regarding pleadings since the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 9:53 am by MBettman
Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 54 Ohio St.2d 147 (willful or wanton conduct can render a limitation of liability clause ineffective; effect of reckless conduct not discussed.) [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 9:03 am by Don T. Hibner, Jr.
" In granting the motion to dismiss, the Northern District of Ohio went through the litany of analysis of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 10:23 am
The court gave a narrow reading to the Supreme Court guidance in Bell Atlantic v. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 8:53 am by MBettman
Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 54 Ohio St.2d 147 (1978) (absent a showing of willful or wanton misconduct, a limitation of liability clause is valid and enforceable.) [read post]
25 Aug 2007, 10:41 am
(Others that come to mind include Carafano, Anthony, Landry-Bell, Barnes and Doe v. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 7:56 pm
The "clear" answer - it depends.In a 2nd District Ohio Court of Appeals case reported this week (Wingate at Belle Meadows v Higgenbotham, 179 Ohio App. 3d 645, 2008-Ohio 6229), the Landlord's assistant manager physically accepted a money order for August, 2007 rent, 32 days after it was due, and 30 days after a 3-Day Notice was served. [read post]