# Kremer v. Cox

> Ohio Court of Appeals · September 11, 1996 · 114 Ohio App. 3d 41

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3696532

## Case

- **Full name:** KREMER, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. COX, Appellee and Cross-Appellant; State Medical Board of Ohio, Intervenor
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 11, 1996
- **Citations:** 114 Ohio App. 3d 41; 682 N.E.2d 1006
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Quillin
- **Judges:** Baird, Quillin, Mahoney, Ninth
- **Cited by:** 217 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3696532

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that plaintiff’s claim “that [the] suit was not properly initiated[,] *** [e]ven *** if *** true, *** do[es] not provide a sufficient legal foundation for a claim of abuse of process; rather, [it] would provide support for, if anything, a malicious prosecution claim”
- noting that “[t]he essence of Kremer’s claim is that the suit against him was brought without probable cause, for an “ulterior” malicious purpose; he does not contend, and presented no evidence to show, that the suit was initially brought with probable cause and later ‘pervert…
- concluding that an abuse of process claim is not established when the conduct of which the plaintiff complains is the act of filing the complaint itself.
- noting that coroner could claim both qualified privilege for statements regarding death certificate under defamation law and qualified immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6)
- noting that failure to comply with the rules governing practice in the appellate courts is a tactic which is ordinarily fatal

## Opinion text

Quillin, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would affirm the judgment
in toto.
I agree with Judge Mahoney that Cox should not be permitted to agree to try the case under one theory, and then, after losing, assert an opposite theory on appeal. The judgment against Cox should be affirmed. I concur in the judgment as to Kremer’s assignments of error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3696532. Public record. Not legal advice.