1 fails to present a question of public or great general concern, because it is based on factual determinations and on the well-settled principle of law that a violation of the disciplinary rule does not constitute negligence per se B. APPELLEE'S ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS' PROPOSITIONS OF LAW A. THIS CASE IS NOT OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST. AUG CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIOĢ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Roman ( ) THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio (216) (Telephone) (216) (Facsimile) Steven.Kaufman(7a, Attorneys and counsel of record for Defendant/Appellee McDonald Hopkins Co., L.P.A. 925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH (216) (Telephone) (216) (Facsimile) JKoehler(a^^ JNealna, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants Steven S. Neal ( ) Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell Co., L.P.A. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE McDONALD HOPKINS CO., L.P.A.'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JURISDICTION James F. Appellants, On Appeal from Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District Court of Appeals Case No. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |