Weir Foulds LLP v. Restivo
Ohio Court of Appeals
2014 WL 1345497 (2014)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Peter Restivo (defendant) hired Weir Foulds, LLP (Weir) (plaintiff), a Canadian law firm, to assist him with a prospective real estate development. After Restivo refused to pay for Weir’s services, Weir filed suit against Restivo in a Canadian court. In the Canadian court, the parties agreed to a summary trial before a judge, not a jury. In the summary trial, the parties had an opportunity to present evidence, challenge the other party’s evidence, and make an oral argument before the judge. Following the summary trial, the Canadian court found in favor of Weir. Weir then submitted a notice of filing the foreign judgment in an Ohio state court. Restivo argued that the Canadian judgment was invalid because it involved a summary trial, not a jury trial as he would have been afforded in Ohio, thus violating Ohio public policy and Restivo’s due-process rights. Restivo further argued the decision to hold a summary trial was influenced by favoritism for Weir. The trial court recognized the Canadian judgment, and Restivo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carr, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.