Bosco v. City of Euclid
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
In disposing of this appeal, it is necessary to discuss a prior appeal. The plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellants will be referred to as “appellee” and “appellants.” Such reference is especially desirable because the plaintiff is appellee in both appeals and the defendants are appellants in both.
Surface indications are that the current appeal involves a relatively simple procedural issue arising from a denial of a motion to vacate under Civ. R. 60(B)(1) and (5). Beneath the surface it is apparent that the motion was an effort to retrieve a chance for review of substantive is sues lost…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Matson v. MarksOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
- Stanwood A. Demers v. Edwin C. BrownCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1965
- Antonopoulos v. EisnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
- Brenner v. ShoreOhio Court of Appeals · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Colley v. BazellOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Moldovan v. Cuyahoga County Welfare DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Brick Processors, Inc. v. CulbertsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
- Cale Products, Inc. v. Orrville Bronze & Aluminum Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
- McCann v. City of LakewoodOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.