Hoppel v. Greater Iowa Corp., 428 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio Ct. App. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Hoppel v. Greater Iowa Corp., 428 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio Ct. App. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …however, the fact that an action involving the same subject matter and the same parties is pending in a court of a sister state does not have the same effect. ⚠ not in text
24 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Developers Diversified Realty v. Coventry Real Estate Fund II, L.L.C.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carlin v. Mambuca, 96 Ohio App.3d 500 , 645 N.E.2d 737 (8th Dist.1994). {¶31} In Hoppel, the court stated that “[t]he fact that an action is pending in another state does not constitute a defense to an action between the same parties over the same cause of action in Ohio.” Hoppel, 68 Ohio App.2d at 210 ; see also Long v. Grill, 155 Ohio App.3d 135 , 2003-Ohio-5665 , 799 N.E.2d 642, at ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (holding that “the pendency of the action in California, involving the same subject matter and the same parties, does not preclude the Ohio trial court’s exercise of jurisdict…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Stradiot Specialty v. American Calendar Co., 2004-L-162 (6-29-2007)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see, also, Hoppel v. Greater Iowa Corp. (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 209 ; Commercial Union Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hoppel, Appellant,
v.
Greater Iowa Corporation Et Al., Appellees; Hoppel, Exrx., Appellant, v. Greater Iowa Corporation Et Al., Appellees
9540 and 9558.
Ohio Court of Appeals.
Apr 30, 1980.
428 N.E.2d 459
Aronson, Fineman Davis Co., L.P.A., Mr. Bernard Fineman and Mr. William J. Davis, for appellants. Messrs. Roderick, Myers Linton, Mr. George T. Roderick and Mr. Robert F. Orth, for appellee Greater Iowa Corporation. Roetzel Andress Co., L.P.A., and Mr. K. Richard Aughenbaugh, for appellee Dico Company, Inc. Roetzel Andress Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Norman S. Carr, for appellee Fallsway Equipment Company, Inc. Messrs. Day, Ketterer, Raley, Wright Rybolt, Mr. Larry R. Brown and Mr. James R. Blake, for appellee Monongahela Power Company.
Mahoney, Bell, Victor.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Mahoney, J.

These two cases have been consolidated on appeal. Plaintiff-appellant, Leonore Hoppel (executrix of the estate of Everett Hoppel), and plaintiff-appellant, Darryl Hoppel, each sued defendants in both the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Ohio, and in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia (the actions in West Virginia were commenced first). The suits in both places share the same subject matter, the same issues, and the same parties. Plain[*210] tiffs’ claims stem from an accident in which Everett Hoppel died and Darryl Hoppel was injured after they suffered contact with a 7200 volt power line in Hancock County, West Virginia.

These appeals arose after the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, in separate proceedings, dismissed plaintiffs’ claims upon defendants’ motions for dismissal, or in the alternative, for a stay pending resolution of the West Virginia proceedings.

DISCUSSION.

Both appellants raise the following assignment of error:

“The court erred in dismissing the appellant’s case upon the motions of the appellees, Greater Iowa Corporation, Dico Company, Inc. and Monongahela Power Company.”

The fact that an action is pending in another state does not constitute a defense to an action between the same parties over the same cause of action in Ohio. Fox v. King Investment & Lumber Co. (1926), 22 Ohio App. 469, 471; Berger v. Moessinger, Fritsch & Co. (1891), 5 Ohio C.C. 432; 14 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Courts, Section 160. An Ohio court’s options, in this situation, are to grant a stay pending the resolution of the earlier action outside Ohio, or to maintain the action in this state. Restatement of Conflict of Laws 2d, Section 86, Comment b. In other words, dismissal is not an option at this stage of the proceedings.

Therefore, we sustain the assignment of error of both appellants, reverse the judgments below, and remand these causes for further proceedings according to law.

Judgments reversed and causes remanded.

Bell, P. J., and Victor, J., concur.