News & Analysis as of

Due Diligence OH Supreme Court

McGlinchey Stafford

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Disclosure Duties Between Creditors and Sureties

McGlinchey Stafford on

In a recent opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio definitively held that a creditor does not have an affirmative duty to disclose facts that materially increase risk to a surety—and nor does a surety have a duty to disclose to...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Seller Disclosure Obligations in Ashmus v. Coughlin

In Ashmus v. Coughlin, 2025-Ohio-2412, the Ohio Supreme Court provided important guidance on the scope of a seller’s disclosure obligations under Ohio Revised Code 5302.30, particularly when it comes to “material defects” in...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

Ohio Supreme Court Further Clarifies ‘Reasonable Diligence’ Standard under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act

On March 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its decision in Fonzi v. Brown and Fonzi v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-901, discussing the level of due diligence required of a surface owner to provide notice to a...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

Ohio Supreme Court Rules on DMA's Notice Requirements for Abandonment of Mineral Interests

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC on

On December 17, the Supreme Court of Ohio held in Gerrity v. Chervenak that the circumstances of each respective case will control the efforts a surface owner must take before resorting to notice by publication under the...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide