Ohio Supreme Court· 4/24/1996

Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis

Citations

75 Ohio St. 3d 433

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a fiduciary relationship did not exist where the creditor dealt with the debtor in a commercial context in which the parties were dealing at arm’s length, each protecting its own interest
holding that parol evidence rule prohibits extrinsic evidence of other promises made in contravention of the express terms of a written contract thus barring claims for promissory estoppel where an express contract exists
finding that the parol evidence rule prevented the plaintiff from prevailing on claims of misrepresentation and promissory estoppel
recognizing both R.C. 1335.04 and R.C. 1335.05 as setting forth Ohio's statute of frauds
describing the contractual duty of good faith as “a compact reference to an implied undertaking not to take opportunistic advantage in a way that could not have been contemplated at the time of drafting”
“In Ohio, truth is a complete defense to a claim for defamation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cook, Donnell, Douglas, Eighth, Moyer, Ninth, Pfeifer, Resnick, Slaby, Sweeney, Terrence, Wright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

147 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced 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.