Legal Opinion

Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1997No. 96-1926PublishedCited by 132 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

The decision to dismiss a case pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1) is within the sound discretion of the trial court.1 Jones v. Hartranft (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 368, 371, 678 N.E.2d 530, 534; Pembaur v. Leis (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 89, 91, 1 OBR 125, 126, 437 N.E.2d 1199, 1201. Our review of such a dismissal is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jones, 78 Ohio St.3d at 371, 678 N.E.2d at 534. Abuse of discretion “ ‘connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court * * *.’ ”…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Pembaur v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Jones v. HartranftOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Ohio Furniture Co. v. MindalaOhio Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by132 opinions

  1. Sazima v. ChalkoOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Hillabrand v. Drypers Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Simeone v. Girard City Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Cuspide Properties, Ltd. v. Earl Mechanical Servs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. Manley v. Heather Hill, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

127 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