Tchankpa v. Gauer
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 225
Syllabus
The trial court did not err in its determination that appellant's other claims were subsumed within the legal malpractice cause of action as they arose from appellee's legal representation in the course of the attorney-client relationship. The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's legal malpractice claim as both the date of termination and the cognizable event occurred more than one year from the date the complaint was filed. Judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- refusing to impose sanctions where standard the regulated party allegedly violated “d[id] not provide ‘fair warning’ of what is required or prohibited”
- refusing to impose sanctions where standard the regulated party allegedly violated “d[id] not provide ‘fair warning’ of what is required or prohibited”
- “Since Kropp’s representatives were present at all times during those inspections and did not raise any objections when informed of the intended sampling, any Fourth Amendment objection to those surveys was waived.”
- noise regulation — 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b) (1980)
- noise regulation-29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b) (1980)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mentel
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.