Legal Opinion

Wiest v. Wiegele

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 13, 2006No. C-050880PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mark P. Painter, Judge.

{¶ 1} This case is a civil-procedure nightmare. An amended complaint was not answered. Judgment was contested before being entered. The trial court denied a motion for relief from judgment, then granted a motion for relief from judgment, then vacated that judgment, and then granted it again — -though the last three times it had no jurisdiction. An appeal was filed without a stay, and the plaintiff then got the money.

{¶ 2} With our decision today, this case is finally over. But then, we thought that last time.

I. The Launch into a Procedural Abyss

{¶ 3} In September 2004,…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Nolan v. NolanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Blodgett v. BlodgettOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State ex rel. Potain v. MathewsOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Lynch v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. O'Donnell v. N.E. Ohio Neighborhood Health Servs., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  2. Art's Rental Equip., Inc. v. Bear Creek Constr., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. Ma v. GomezOhio Court of Appeals · 2023
  4. Cleveland v. Embassy Realty Invests., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. Carlson v. CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 2020

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