Kademian v. Marger
Decision Date | 03 October 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 25917.,25917. |
Citation | 20 N.E.3d 1176 |
Parties | Michael T. KADEMIAN, M.D., Plaintiff–Appellant v. Donald MARGER, M.D., et al., Defendant–Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
James M. Hill, James M. Hill Co., L.P.A., Beavercreek, OH, for plaintiff-appellant.
Felix J. Gora, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Cincinnati, OH, for defendant-appellees.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Michael T. Kademian, M.D., filed September 19, 2013. Kademian appeals from the December 20, 2012 Verdict Entry of the trial court, issued following trial at which a unanimous jury found in favor of Appellee Donald Marger, M.D., on Kademian's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. Kademian also appeals from the August 20, 2013 Decision of the trial court that overruled his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. We hereby affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} The lengthy factual history herein is set forth in this Court's March 9, 2012 Opinion reversing the decision of the trial court and remanding the matter on Kademian's direct appeal from the trial court's decision entering summary judgment in favor of Marger on Kademian's claims for conversion and tortious interference, and granting Marger's motion for a directed verdict, at the close of Kademian's case, on Kademian's claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Kademian, M.D. v. Marger, M.D., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24256, 2012-Ohio-962, 2012 WL 762316 (“Kademian I ”). Therein this Court noted that in ruling on Kademian's appeal, it “construed the transcripts of testimony and documents admitted at the conclusion of Dr. Kademian's case most strongly in Dr. Kademian's favor.” Id., ¶ 5. This Court set forth the following facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hartman
...its discretion and a party was materially prejudiced as a result, reviewing courts should be slow to interfere.’ " Kademian v. Marger, 2014-Ohio-4408, 20 N.E.3d 1176, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.), quoting Waste Mgt. of Ohio, Inc. v. Mid–America Tire, Inc., 113 Ohio App.3d 529, 533, 681 N.E.2d 492 (2d Di......
-
Warner v. DMAX Ltd.
...{¶ 34} The decision whether to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is left to the discretion of the trial court. Kademian v. Marger, 2014-Ohio-4408, 20 N.E.3d 1176, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.), citing Yungwirth v. McAvoy, 32 Ohio St.2d 285, 286, 291 N.E.2d 739 (1972) ; Zerkle v. Kendall, 172 Ohio Ap......
-
EiserAmper LLP v. Morgan (In re SRC Liquidation LLC)
...resulting proximately therefrom." Puhl v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 34 N.E.3d 530, 536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) ; see also, Kademian v. Marger , 20 N.E.3d 1176, 1205 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) ("If a plaintiff establishes that a defendant breached his fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must then establish that th......
-
Koons v. Comm'r Irs
...Ohio courts discuss whether a majority shareholder had a "legitimate business purpose" for a particular action. Kademian v. Marger, 20 N.E.3d 1176 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014); Hickerson v. Hickerson, No. 5-10-08, 2010 WL 3385792 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2010); Tablack v. Wellman, No. 04-MA-218, 200......