# Gray-Jones v. Jones

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 23, 2000 · 137 Ohio App. 3d 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3753452

## Case

- **Full name:** GRAY-JONES, Appellant, v. JONES Et Al., Appellees; GRAY-JONES, Appellant, v. ENERGY MARKETING SERVICES, INC. Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 23, 2000
- **Citations:** 137 Ohio App. 3d 93; 738 N.E.2d 64
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Deshler
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Petree, Deshler
- **Cited by:** 20 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/3753452

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that plaintiff's conduct in filing a harassing lawsuit and her "later actions" of "leaving harassing and threatening phone messages" were relevant "to show her intent and motive"
- stating that, although controlling shareholders owed appellant, a minority shareholder, a heightened fiduciary duty, they terminated her for a legitimate business purpose
- noting that "Ohio law also recognizes the tort of intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship"

## Opinion text

Deshler, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I agree with the majority in most respects, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s award of attorney fees.
The trial court awarded appellees $454,517 in attorney fees. The award of fees, if confined to the partial summary judgment procedure, pursuant to R.C. 2721.09, would be sustainable. However, fees generated for other work relating to the case would not be awardable. There does not appear to be any distinguishing of fees incurred relating to partial summary judgment and other fees generated by the litigation between the parties. The gross award of fees is therefore in error. I would therefore sustain appellant’s assignment of error regarding the award of attorney fees. In all other respects, I agree with the majority’s treatment of the various assignments of error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3753452. Public record. Not legal advice.