Legal Opinion
Vance v. Roedersheimer
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 2, 1992No. 91-1323PublishedCited by 101 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert R. Brown, J.
The issue before us in this case is the enforceability of Loc.R. 2.53(Z). For the reasons which follow, we affirm the holdings, but not the reasoning, of the court of appeals.
Direct Appeal
Courts of this state are entitled to adopt rules of local practice. However, under Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, Civ.R. 83 and C.P.Sup.R. 9(C),4 local rules may not be inconsistent with any rule governing procedure or practice promulgated by this court, including the Rules of Civil Procedure. Any local rule is therefore enforceable only to the extent that it is consistent with the Civil…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sorin v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Betty I. Hardy Hall, Cross-Appellee v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Three-Seventy Leasing Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Ampex Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Centennial Insurance v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Benda v. FanaOhio Supreme Court · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by101 opinions
- McConnell v. Hunt Sports EnterprisesOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
- State ex rel. Pennington v. GundlerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Motorists Mutual Insurance v. BrandenburgOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Green v. LemarrOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Amerifirst Savings Bank of Xenia v. KrugOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.