Cleveland
Located on historic Public Square, overlooking Lake Erie, Marshall Dennehey's Cleveland office provides legal representation to insurance carriers and other clients throughout the state and beyond.
The office handles cases in both state and federal courts in the majority of counties and all major cities in Ohio, as does our Cincinnati office. Additionally, some attorneys in our Cleveland and Cincinnati offices are admitted to practice in Kentucky and handle matters in the state and federal courts there as well. In every stage of litigation, from the taking and defending of depositions to trying cases to verdict, our lawyers take seriously the interests of clients and customers in the practical and efficient resolution of claims.
Our Cleveland attorneys service clients in all manner of civil defense litigation under three of the firm's four core departments – Casualty, Health Care and Professional Liability. The office's practices range from retail liability, premises liability, and health care liability to special investigations/insurance fraud and other complex defense litigation matters. In addition to successfully obtaining numerous summary judgement victories on behalf of clients, our trial practice has produced many defense verdicts as well as verdicts below the last settlement offer prior to trial.
From its downtown location, the office provides clients with the benefit of convenient access to the courts, airports and major traffic arteries, and everything else that the downtown Cleveland area has to offer.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
New Ohio Law Targets Real Estate Wholesaling Practices
May 7, 2026
Effective March 2, 2026, the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Real Estate and Professional Licensing (REPL) now requires real estate wholesalers to clearly disclose their intention and business model when contracting with a property owner and seller. This was part of Ohio Senate Bill 155, which passed unanimously in the Ohio Senate in June 2025, and was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on December 1, 2025. Real estate wholesalers serve as intermediaries in property transactions. They enter into a purchase agreement with a seller with no intent to buy the property themselves. Instead, they assign the contract to another buyer or investor at a higher price or charge a fee, typically 5% to 10% of the sale price, to earn a profit. The REPL, in partnership with the Ohio Department of Aging (ODA), and Ohio District 5 Area Agency on Aging in Richland issued a Consumer Alert in March 2025, on wholesalers, citing a rise in unsolicited real estate offers targeting older Ohio homeowners, often offering complex financial arrangements that include hidden risks, leaving older homeowners financially vulnerable. Under this new legislation, real estate wholesalers in Ohio are required to disclose their status to sellers or property owners and clarify that they do not represent the seller in the transaction. The law mandates that this disclosure be made through a clear and conspicuous written statement informing the seller that the individual is acting as a wholesaler. This disclosure must also be separate from the purchase contract or agreement between the parties and must be printed in bold type with a font size of at least 12 points. In the event a wholesaler fails to provide proper notice to the seller, the seller may cancel the purchase contract at any time before the close of escrow without penalty, giving the wholesaler 30 days to return any earnest money or deposits to the seller. Wholesalers who do not clearly disclose their role or properly inform the seller may also face disciplinary action from the Ohio Superintendent of Real Estate. This can include penalties such as suspension or revocation of their real estate license, as well as potential civil liability, monetary damages, and responsibility for attorneys’ fees.
Case Law Alerts
Aw Heck, As-Applied Challenges do not Implicate a Conviction
April 1, 2026
A new ruling from SCOTUS gives a lesson in Greek mythology, but more importantly makes it a near certainty that civil-rights plaintiffs will be able to run their malicious prosecution suit through summary judgment, despite a conviction. The oral argument led many to believe that the justices felt this was a complicated case, but in Olivier v. City of Brandon, a unanimous Court found that a suit that seeks prospective relief from arrest is not barred by the previous ruling in Heck v. Humphrey. Heck holds that a civil suit cannot invalidate a criminal conviction and is most often cited in cases arguing dismissal of a malicious prosecution claim because the plaintiff had been found guilty of the relevant charge. However, under Olivier, if the same plaintiff pleads prospective injunctive relief, the case may continue without an ad damnum request for damages. The result is an as-applied constitutional challenge of the law under which the plaintiff was convicted. There is no question that there is merit in reviewing the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances – but the as-applied challenge comes with significant expense and limited functional results. The Court even acknowledges that for Olivier to succeed in his suit for prospective relief, a court would find “something past should not have occurred” – that “something past” being a conviction in most cases. To come to this conclusion and avoid the implications of Heck, Justice Kagan drew a parallel to a citizen that seeks to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance that would prevent the plaintiff from exercising his free speech in the manner he desires – of course before the exercise actually occurs. There is no question that Heck does not apply in the case of a preliminary injunction, but Olivier presents an interesting glance into a criminal justice system that allows an accused to challenge the constitutionality during the criminal trial, get convicted, then challenge the constitutionality again in a civil suit. Practitioners should consider a request for prospective relief as an as-applied constitutional challenge that will likely need to be briefed at the summary judgment stage, therefore requiring discovery into the circumstances of the arrest.
Results
Defense Verdict in Ohio Medical Malpractice Case
We obtained a medical malpractice defense verdict on behalf of a skilled nursing facility in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, Ohio. The children of an 82-year-old skilled nursing resident brought a lawsuit after their mother developed shingles and associated meningitis and passed away. They claimed the facility had inadequate infection control and failed to identify signs/symptoms of developing changes in their mother’s condition. The defense proved the facility offered the appropriate vaccinations that were required by the state of Ohio and that the standard of care did not require the facility offer or administer the Shingrix vaccine to its residents. They also proved the facility properly monitored the resident’s signs and symptoms; that she did not exhibit any classic signs or symptoms of shingles at the facility; and that the facility timely sent her to the ER for evaluation when her condition changed. In closing arguments after a five-day trial, the plaintiffs asked the jury for $3 million. The jury deliberated for 75 minutes and returned with a defense verdict.
Successfully Defended a Suburban Mayor in a Defamation Case
We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court decision dismissing a defamation claim against a suburban mayor. The plaintiff, a former police officer, brought actions against a former city mayor and related defendants, asserting defamation, false light and related claims. The plaintiff alleged that statements made during a press conference disparaged him and violated a non-disparagement clause in his separation agreement. The court ruled the defamation and false light claims were correctly barred by the one-year statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.11(A) where the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), permitted refiling in federal court, but did not toll limitations for subsequent state filings after the federal court dismissal. The appellate court also found the former mayor’s statements, regarding police leaders who allegedly retaliated against her, were deemed truthful and, thus, not defamatory or disparaging.
News
Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA
June 4, 2026
Marshall Dennehey Promotes James Cole and Sunny Sparano to Lead The Firm’s Professional Liability Department and Announces New Board of Directors Appointments
January 5, 2026
Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions
December 15, 2025
