GALMISH v. CICCHINI

No. 99-1337.

90 Ohio St.3d 22 (2000)

GALMISH, APPELLANT, ET AL. v. CICCHINI, APPELLEE, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided September 20, 2000.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

A. William Zavarello Co., L.P.A., A. William Zavarello and Rhonda Gail Davis; Day, Ketterer, Raley, Wright & Rybolt, Ltd., and Todd A. Harpst, for appellant.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Ralph Streza, Natalie Peterson and James E. Pohlman, for appellee.

Ray & Alton, L.L.P., and Frank A. Ray, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.


ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.

I

Parol Evidence Rule

The pivotal issue in this appeal is whether Galmish's claims are barred by the parol evidence rule.

The parol evidence rule states that "absent fraud, mistake or other invalidating cause, the parties' final written integration of their agreement may not be varied, contradicted or supplemented by evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases