Tri-County Concrete Co. v. Uffman-Kirsch

2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4749 (2000)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Tri-County Concrete Co. v. Uffman-Kirsch

Ohio Court of Appeals
2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4749 (2000)

  • Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD

Facts

Tri-County Concrete Company (Tri-County) (plaintiff) acquired property in North Royalton, Ohio to expand its concrete operation. Tri-County obtained a use variance to construct plants on the North Royalton property. The use variance was subject to restrictions, and failure to comply with the restrictions was grounds for revocation of the variance. North Royalton discovered that Tri-County was in violation of the restrictions and posted stop-work orders on the company’s site on July 2, 1996, but Tri-County attempted to continue operations the next day. On July 9, North Royalton issued an order to correct the violations and gave Tri-County 15 days to comply. Lisa Uffman-Kirsch (defendant) was part of a local organization supporting an initiative to establish a rural-residential zoning district in North Royalton. On July 22, Uffman-Kirsch sent a letter to the planning commission, disparaging the company for its “total disregard” and “complete defiance” of North Royalton’s laws, restrictions, and requirements. On September 18, Tri-County filed a complaint against Uffman-Kirsch and others, alleging defamation and malicious interference with the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Uffman-Kirsch filed a counterclaim alleging abuse of process and violation of her First Amendment right to free speech against Tri-County. The trial court granted summary judgment to Uffman-Kirsch on Tri-County’s claims and granted summary judgment to Tri-County on Uffman-Kirsch’s counterclaims. Tri-County appealed, alleging that the court had erred in granting summary judgment on its claims. Uffman-Kirsch also appealed, arguing that Tri-County’s lawsuit was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Some states had enacted anti-SLAPP legislation designed to prevent unfounded lawsuits against members of the public who voiced concerns on matters of public interest. Although Ohio had a general frivolous-lawsuit statute, Ohio did not have an anti-SLAPP statute.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership