Legal Opinion

Jones v. Hartranft

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1997No. 95-2497PublishedCited by 91 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

With this case we hold that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a claim with prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) when a plaintiff, who has had an objectively reasonable amount of time for discovery, fails to proceed upon a scheduled trial date for want of evidence of defendant’s liability.

DISMISSAL UNDER CIV. R. 41(B)(1)

Civ.R. 41(B)(1) provides that “[w]here the plaintiff fails to prosecute, * * * the court upon motion of a defendant or on its own motion may, after notice to the plaintiffs counsel, dismiss an action or claim.”2 A dismissal for failure to prosecute “operates…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Pembaur v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Toney v. BerkemerOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Industrial Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equipment Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by91 opinions

  1. Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Sazima v. ChalkoOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Heimberger v. Zeal Hotel Group, Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. Simeone v. Girard City Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Thomas v. FreemanOhio Supreme Court · 1997

86 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