Couzens v. Union Bank & Trust Co.
Citations
- 234 N.E.3d 661
- 2024 Ohio 306
Syllabus
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS – CIVIL CONSPIRACY – JUSTIFICATION: The trial court did not err when it granted defendant bank's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's tortious-interference claims because there was no genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the bank's claim of justification as a defense to those claims. The trial court did not err when it granted defendant bank's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's civil-conspiracy claim because there were no other torts upon which to base a claim of civil conspiracy.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final decision subject to appeal
- requiring the trial judge to make (1) “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay” and (2) an “express direction for the entry of judgment”
- requiring the trial judge to make (1) “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay” and (2) an “express direction for the entry of judgment”
- applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which mirrors RCFC 54(b)
- applying Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b), which mirrors RCFC 54(b)
- applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which mirrors RCFC 54(b)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crouse
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.