Legal Opinion
Sogg v. Zurz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 8, 2009No. 2007-1452PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
{¶ 1} The issue before this court is whether the first sentence of R.C. 169.08(D), which provides that “[i]nterest is not payable to claimants of unclaimed funds held by the state,” is constitutional. We conclude that it is not.
Background
{¶ 2} Appellee, the director of commerce of the state of Ohio, now Kimberly Zurz, supervises and administers the Division of Unclaimed Funds pursuant to R.C. Chapter 169, the Unclaimed Funds Act (“UFA”). Property becomes “unclaimed funds” when the owner has not generated any specified activity for a prescribed period. R.C. 169.02. A holder of unclaimed…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Comer v. RiskoOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. WarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- City of Norwood v. HorneyOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Jackman v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1967
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Katherine Cerajeski v. Greg ZoellerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- San Allen, Inc. v. BuehrerOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Hall v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Gattozzi v. SheehanOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Combs v. B.A.R.D. Industries Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2009
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.