Legal Opinion

Pruszynski v. Reeves

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 2008No. 2006-2072PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} Today we decide an issue that has caused much consternation among the trial and appellate courts in this state. Does a motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(C) require the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing before rendering a ruling? For the reasons that follow, we hold that a trial court must set a date certain for an evidentiary hearing before ruling on an R.C. 1343.03(C) motion for prejudgment interest. Consequently, courts of appeals do not have the authority to rule on a motion for prejudgment interest when the trial court has ruled on the motion…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Galmish v. CicchiniOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Rulli v. Fan Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Hooten v. Safe Auto InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Miller v. First International Fidelity & Trust Building, Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Culbreath v. Golding Enterprises, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. PullinsOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Willie M. Folks v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Nguyen v. ChenOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. Clark v. Grant Med. Ctr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015

16 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