Appellate Decisions

Meclovsky v. Ohio Savings Assoc. (Sept. 22, 1983), Cuyahoga Cty. App. No. 45984, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 12929. 

Successfully briefed and argued that borrowers who obtained mortgages from the Ohio Savings Association were entitled to proceed in a class action format in order to seek redress from the lender's attempt to activate a clause that the bank inserted into its mortgage notes allowing the bank to require full repayment of the loans' balances five or ten years after the loans were first obtained.  Even though five or ten years had passed, the bank did not enforce the five or ten year pay-off provisions.  However, many years later, when interest rates skyrocketed, the bank belatedly attempted to enforce the five or ten-year payoff provisions in order to force the borrowers to refinance their loans at much higher interest rates.  This successful appeal ultimately led to a successful resolution on behalf of the affected class of borrowers. 

Jones v. TransOhio Sav. Assoc., 747 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir. 1984).

Successfully argued that the one-year statute of limitations governing Truth in Lending actions should not begin to run until the borrower knew or should have known of the lender's violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Mathis v. Cleveland Public Library (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 199.

Successfully argued before the Ohio Supreme Court that a governmental entity, the Cleveland Public Library, was not immune from suit under the "Sovereign Immunity" doctrine.

Dinger v. Cuyahoga Smelting & Processing Co. (Sept. 8, 1988), Cuyahoga Cty. App. No. 53455, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 3633.

Successfully argued that it would be unconstitutional to apply a new statute that made it more difficult for employees to sue their employers for intentional misconduct because the statute was enacted after the employee was injured.  The employee was injured while loading aluminum scrap into a smelting furnace which, because the scrap was damp, caused an explosion which threw the employee from a tow motor, causing significant injury.

Clancy v. Euclid General Hospital (1989), 65 Ohio App. 3d 438.

Successfully argued by our Cleveland medical malpractice attorneys before the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in dismissing a medical malpractice case involving the stillbirth of an infant.  The court of appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal which ultimately led to a favorable, confidential settlement. 

Shorter v. Champion Home Builders, 776 F. Supp 333 (N.D. Oh 1991). 

Successfully argued  by our Cleveland personal injury attorneys in U.S. District Court that a lawsuit by owners of a mobile home who were exposed to excessive levels of formaldehyde emitted from particleboard flooring and plywood paneling, was not subject to dismissal under the "preemption" doctrine.  The case has been cited by numerous treatises and law review articles.

Hall v. Fairmont Homes, Inc. (1995), 105 Ohio App. 3d 424.

Successfully argued by our Cleveland, OH personal injury attorneys before the Ross County Court of Appeals that owners of a mobile home who were exposed to excessive levels of formaldehyde emitted from the particleboard flooring and plywood paneling of their home were permitted to pursue product liability claims and claims under the Consumer Sales Practices Act against the manufacturer and seller of the mobile home and the manufacturers of the building materials.  The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were not preempted by federal law.

Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank (1998), 82 Ohio St. 3d 67.

Successfully argued that a lawsuit on behalf of a group of borrowers whose lender calculated interest using a method that covertly increased the interest rates on their mortgage loans, should be permitted to proceed as a class action.  The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the case could proceed as a class action.  A noted treatise on class action law described the decision as the “seminal case on class actions” in the State of Ohio.

Coleman v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (2008), 174 Ohio App. 3d 75, 2008-Ohio-317. 

Successfully argued by our Cleveland, Ohio personal injury attorneys before the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals that a governmental entity, the Greater Cleveland RTA, was not immune from suit for failing to protect a passenger from an assault by another passenger.

Cleveland Personal Injury Case Evaluation

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.