Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Expelling Law Firm Partners, Douglas R. Richmond Jan 2009

Expelling Law Firm Partners, Douglas R. Richmond

Cleveland State Law Review

Law firm partners may be de-equitized or expelled by their firms in good times as well as lean. Such actions appear to be on the upswing. There are, however, relatively few cases on these subjects. The leading case, Holman v. Coie, is dated; the practice of law, at least in large law firms, has changed considerably in the thirty plus years since Holman was decided. Looking ahead, courts must carefully reanalyze the intra-firm duty of good faith and fair dealing. Rather than confining liability to cases of economic predation, courts should review partner de-equitizations and expulsions under either excluder or …


Piercing The Corporate Veil In Ohio: The Need For A New Standard Following Dombroski V. Wellpoint, Inc., Case Comment, Margaret A. Sweeney Jan 2009

Piercing The Corporate Veil In Ohio: The Need For A New Standard Following Dombroski V. Wellpoint, Inc., Case Comment, Margaret A. Sweeney

Cleveland State Law Review

Part II.A of this Comment will discuss the history and purpose of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. Part II.B will describe the evolution of this doctrine within Ohio from the development of the Belvedere three-part test, through the conflict among the courts of appeals that gave rise to the Supreme Court of Ohio's latest attempt at clarification. Part III will discuss the facts and procedural history of Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc. Part IV.A will show how the Supreme Court of Ohio's modification of the Belvedere test will inevitably cause another conflict among the courts of appeals. Part IV.B …


Ohio's New Partnership Law , Jeanne M. Rickert Jan 2009

Ohio's New Partnership Law , Jeanne M. Rickert

Cleveland State Law Review

This article focuses on key areas where Chapter 1776 and RUPA reflect changes in the law of partnerships. This article also highlights how Chapter 1776 differs from RUPA so that lawyers can tailor agreements to Ohio law, and lawyers and courts considering questions of Ohio partnership law can take into account statutory variations when considering the persuasiveness of case law from other jurisdictions that may not have the same statutory rules.