douglas p. whipple
douglas p. whipple
Douglas P. Whipple is a civil trial lawyer with a concentration in business and employment related litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has served as lead counsel in cases involving age and sex discrimination, commercial contracts and leases, retirement communities, securities, noncompete agreements, real estate disputes, products liability and other torts. Mr. Whipple is the former president of the Strategic Advisory Committee of the American Red Cross Business Emergency Planning Association, and frequently lectures on the topics of emergency response and crisis management. He advises businesses on emergencey planning and liability prevention.
Mr. Whipple was recognized as an "Ohio Super Lawyer" by Law & Politics Magazine in the practice area of general litigation. He is a life member of the Judicial Conference of the Eighth Appellate District of Ohio. He served as Managing Editor of the Cleveland State Law Review. His note on FTC business litigation was published in the Law Review and awarded the Chief Justice Samuel H. Silbert Award for Meritorious Writing.
Mr. Whipple has been licensed to practice law in Ohio since 1980, and in Pennsylvania since 1986. He is a member of the Ohio and Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Associations, and their respective litigation sections.
SELECTED PUBLISHED CASES
Royal Indem. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 501 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio 1986).
In a complex case arising from a large shopping center fire, a Pennsylvania law firm was admitted “pro hac vice” (permitted to practice in Ohio just for the single case) to represent the client’s adversary. The out-of-state attorneys repeatedly stated that certain inculpatory evidence did not exist, but these statements were false and deceptive because the evidence was actually in the possession of the out-of-state attorneys. The Trial Court consequently revoked the privilege of the out-of-state lawyers to practice law in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that out-of-state attorneys are subject to the state’s disciplinary code. This was selected as the lead case in an annotation by American Law Reports (A.L.R.) on the topic of revocation of pro hac vice admissions.
Convenient Food Mart, Inc. v. Countywide Petroleum Co., 2005-Ohio-1994, 05-LW-1731 (OHCA8) 84722.
After a protracted contract dispute between the client and a gasoline retail chain, the parties entered into a verbal settlement. The client filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement after the other party balked at certain provisions in the written agreement. The Trial Court adopted the client’s version of the written agreement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
Tabbaa v. Koglman, 2005-Ohio-1498, 05-LW-1303 (OHCA8) 94539. The client, the landlord of commercial property, was sued by his tenant. Client asserted a counterclaim and obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $225,000. The parties entered into a verbal settlement in the amount of $300,000, but the tenant refused to execute the subsequent written settlement agreement. The Trial Court, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, entered an order enforcing the $300,000 judgment and awarded an additional $41,000 in interest. The Court of Appeals held that the order of the Trial Court enforcing the settlement agreement was proper.
Tabbaa v. Koglman, 2004-Ohio-2706, 04-LW-2280 (OHCA8) 83215. The client, the landlord of commercial property, was sued by his tenant. The client asserted a counterclaim and obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $225,000. The client then obtained a garnishment against the tenant’s bank account. The tenant argued that the Municipal Court should release the garnished funds once the Court was notified of a subsequent $300,000 settlement of the case, but the Court of Appeals held that the argument was premature and consequently dismissed the tenant’s appeal.
State v. Caplan, 2004-Ohio-4990, 04-LW-4178 (OHCA7) 03 MA 91.
The client was cited for failing to change lanes while approaching a police car with flashing lights that was making a traffic stop on the berm of a multi-lane highway. The client’s conviction was overturned based on overwhelming evidence that the client subjectively believed that she could not safely change lanes under the existing traffic conditions, notwithstanding the provision of Ohio Revised Code 4511.213 that requires drivers approaching safety vehicles to take such evasive action.
Cerio v. Hilroc Condominium Unit Owners Assn., Inc., 2004-Ohio-1254, 04-LW-1048 (OHCA8) 83309.
Thirty-one clients sued their condominium association because they were assessed for balcony repairs even though their condo units did not have balconies. The Trial Court declared the balconies to be “limited common areas” and permanently enjoined the condominium association from collecting assessments from the clients for any balcony repairs.
Currey v. Shell Oil Co., 112 Ohio App.3d 312, 678 N.E.2d 635 (Ohio App. 4 Dist. 1996).
An explosion occurred at client’s chemical company which in turn ignited fires in the facility’s tank farm. The resulting fumes, smoke and debris triggered a community evacuation. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs—persons and neighboring businesses—failed to present significant evidence that a class action against the client would be a superior judicial procedure to individual lawsuits.
Perry v. S.S. Steel Processing Corp., 40 Ohio App.3d 198, 532 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1987).
The client was sued by the estate of its employee, who was killed in a steel coil slitting line. The estate alleged that the client was liable for intentional tort and also in negligence for non-compliance with the workers compensation statutes. The Trial Court vacated a $1,362,750 jury verdict against the client. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the client’s certificate of premium payment was prima facia evidence of compliance, thereby entitling the client to statutory employer’s immunity.
