Legal Opinion
Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 25, 1983No. 82-442PublishedCited by 155 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant appellant’s motion, under Civ. R. 60(B)(5), to vacate the default judgment previously entered.
Civ. R. 60(B) states, in part:
“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- Adomeit v. BaltimoreOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
- Antonopoulos v. EisnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
3Cited by155 opinions
- Strack v. PeltonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Svoboda v. City of BrunswickOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Porter v. Frutta Del Mondo, Ltd., 08ap-69 (7-17-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Associated Estates Corp. v. FellowsOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.