Court of Appeals of Ohio
736 N.E.2d 556 (1999)
In 1983, Steven Donohue (defendant) bought a house and property from Betty Lou Wood (plaintiff) pursuant to an installment contract. The property was near a uranium plant. In 1985, a class-action suit was filed against the uranium plant. Donohue and Wood each filed claims as part of the suit. The suit settled, and pursuant to the settlement, the owner of the Wood/Donohue property was entitled to almost $10,000. The payouts under the settlement were determined based on the value of affected properties as of December 18, 1984. Wood brought suit against Donohue, claiming that she was entitled to a portion of the settlement payment equal to the portion of the property for which Donohue had not yet paid under the terms of the installment contract. The trial court agreed with Wood and entered judgment in her favor. Donohue appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Painter, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.