Legal Opinion

State v. Jones

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1980No. 79-273PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Per curiam

I

Appellant, in its first proposition of law, essentially asserts that the doctrine of subrogation should allow its claim to have priority over the undiscovered but properly recorded claim of the state.

In a broad sense, one person is subrogated to certain rights of another person where he is substituted in the place *101of such other person so that he succeeds to those rights of the other person. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hensgen (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 83.

The doctrine of subrogation incorporates both conventional subrogation and legal (or equitable) subrogation. Conventional subrogation is premised…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fort Dodge Building & Loan Ass'n v. ScottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
  2. Federal Union Life Ins. v. DeitschOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. HensgenOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Canton Morris Plan Bank v. MostOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
  5. Harshman v. HarshmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1941

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Blue Cross v. HrenkoOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. PIE Mutual Insurance v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Bavely v. Huntington National Bank (In Re Cowan)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  5. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. KangahOhio Supreme Court · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API