Legal Opinion

Capital One Bank v. Day

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 3, 2008No. 07CA3161PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McFarland, Judge.

{¶ 1} Appellant Capital One Bank appeals the trial court’s judgment imposing sanctions for filing an action on an account without complying with the requirements set forth in Asset Acceptance Corp. v. Proctor, 156 Ohio App.3d 60, 2004-Ohio-623, 804 N.E.2d 975. Appellant asserts that there is no evidence that it willfully violated Civ.R. 11 and that it complied with the pleading requirements under Civ.R. 10(D)(1). Appellant thus contends that the trial court abused its discretion by determining otherwise. Based upon our recent decision in Capital One Bank v. Nolan, Washington…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Brown v. Columbus Stamping & Mfg. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1967
  3. State ex rel. Fant v. SykesOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Amf, Inc. v. MravecOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. State ex rel. Dreamer v. MasonOhio Supreme Court · 2007

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Citibank, N.A. v. HineOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. Isaac v. MalottOhio Court of Appeals · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API