Holmes v. United States of America

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Ohio law does not apply the continuing violation theory to conversion claims
• declining to apply the continuing violation exception to a tortious interference claim because “[i]n Ohio, the continuing tort doctrine is usually employed in cases involving injury caused by a trespass to real property”
• “The parties identify no Ohio cases applying the continuing tort doctrine to . . . intentional interference with business opportunities [claims].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).