Legal Opinion

Svoboda v. City of Brunswick

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1983No. 82-915PublishedCited by 97 opinions

1Per curiam

The question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60 (B). Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief from judgment depends upon whether the particular difficulties he faced in obtaining an attorney may be considered “excusable neglect” under Civ. R. 60 (B)(1).

The extent to which certain actions may be regarded as constituting “excusable neglect” was examined by this court in Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 243, 248 [18 O.O.3d 442], wherein we stated:

“* * * [T]he concept of ‘excusable neglect’…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Colley v. BazellOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. LohmanOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Pembaur v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Doddridge v. FitzpatrickOhio Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Center, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Argo Plastic Products Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. National City Commercial Capital Corp. v. AAAA At Your Service, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Mid-America Acceptance Co. v. LightleOhio Court of Appeals · 1989

92 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