Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1946–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewiczgreen2 sentences2025“A party who fails to assert a compulsory counterclaim at the proper time is barred from litigating that claim in a subsequent lawsuit.” Soliel Tans, L.L.C. v. Timber Bentley Coe, L.L.C., 2019-Ohio-4889, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.); Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohio St.3d 12, 14 (1984) (under the doctrine of res judicata, the failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim bars its assertion in a subsequent litigation). {¶9} “The two-pronged test for applying Civ.R. 13(A) is: (1) does the claim exist at the time of serving the pleading …; and (2) does the claim arise out of the transaction or 2025A claim must be brought as a compulsory counterclaim under Civ.R. 13(A) where the claim (1) “‘exist[s] at the time of serving the pleading’” and (2) “‘arise[s] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing claim.’” Rettig Ents. v. Koehler, 68 Ohio St.3d 274, 277 (1994), quoting Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohio St.3d 12, 14 (1984). | 5 | 20 |
Rettig Enterprises, Inc. v. Koehlergreen2 sentences2025A claim must be brought as a compulsory counterclaim under Civ.R. 13(A) where the claim (1) “‘exist[s] at the time of serving the pleading’” and (2) “‘arise[s] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing claim.’” Rettig Ents. v. Koehler, 68 Ohio St.3d 274, 277 (1994), quoting Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohio St.3d 12, 14 (1984). 2024Dennis’ claims for specific performance and damages related to the option to purchase were not compulsory counterclaims in the 2017 action because they had not arisen at the time he filed his answer in the 2017 action.10 See, e.g., Rettig Ents. v. Koehler, 68 Ohio St.3d 274, 277 , 626 N.E.2d 99 (1994) (A claim must be brought as a compulsory counterclaim under Civ.R. 13(A) where the claim (1) “‘exist[s] at the time of serving the pleading’” and (2) “‘arise[s] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing claim.’”), quoting Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juski | 2 | 16 |
Hoover v. Sumlingreen1 sentence2025However, Civ.R. 13(F) provides that “[w]hen a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may by leave of court set up the counterclaim by amendment.” An amendment under Civ.R. 13(F) is governed by Civ.R. 15(A), which favors leave to amend unless there is “‘a finding of bad faith, undue delay or undue prejudice to the opposing party.’” Josselson v. Josselson, 52 Ohio App.3d 60, 61 (8th Dist. 1988), quoting Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Soliel Tans, L.L.C. v. Timber Bentley Coe, L.L.C.green1 sentence2025“A party who fails to assert a compulsory counterclaim at the proper time is barred from litigating that claim in a subsequent lawsuit.” Soliel Tans, L.L.C. v. Timber Bentley Coe, L.L.C., 2019-Ohio-4889, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.); Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohio St.3d 12, 14 (1984) (under the doctrine of res judicata, the failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim bars its assertion in a subsequent litigation). {¶9} “The two-pronged test for applying Civ.R. 13(A) is: (1) does the claim exist at the time of serving the pleading …; and (2) does the claim arise out of the transaction or | 1 | 1 |
Josselson v. Josselsongreen1 sentence2025However, Civ.R. 13(F) provides that “[w]hen a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may by leave of court set up the counterclaim by amendment.” An amendment under Civ.R. 13(F) is governed by Civ.R. 15(A), which favors leave to amend unless there is “‘a finding of bad faith, undue delay or undue prejudice to the opposing party.’” Josselson v. Josselson, 52 Ohio App.3d 60, 61 (8th Dist. 1988), quoting Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. New York Cotton Exchangegreen1 sentence2020To determine whether claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, courts employ the “‘logical relation’” test, which provides that claims are logically related when “separate trials on each of their respective claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the courts[.]” Retting Ents., Inc. at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court has, therefore, emphasized the broad meaning and flexibility inherent in the phrase “same transaction or occurrence.” See id. at 278, quoting Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 610 ( | 1 | 1 |
Grava v. Parkman Townshipgreen1 sentence2020Compare Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995), syllabus (“A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.”). {¶9} A claim must be brought as a counterclaim if it existed at the time the pleading was served and arose “‘out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing claim.’” Rettig Ents., Inc. at 277, quoting Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohio St.3d 12, 14 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rettig Enterprises, Inc. v. Koehler
neutral
2 sentences2021“Civ.R. 13(A) requires all existing claims between opposing parties that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence to be litigated in a single lawsuit, regardless of which party initiates the lawsuit.” Rettig Ents. v. Koehler, 68 Ohio St.3d 274, 278 , 1994-Ohio-127 , 626 N.E.2d 99 . “‘[T]he two-pronged test for applying Civ.R. 13(A) is: (1) does the claim exist at the time of serving the pleading * * *; and (2) does the claim arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing claim.’” Id. at 277 , citing Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohi 2008A claim must be brought as a counterclaim if it (1) "exist[s] at the time of serving the pleading," and (2) "arise[s] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing claim." Id. (quoting Geauga Truck Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 9 Ohio St. 3d 12, 14 (1984)). *Page 8 {¶ 13} Ms. Meadows' claim of sole ownership is based on a cognovit note and mortgage deed conveying Ms. Hicks's husband's undivided one-half interest in the property to Ms. Meadows' seller, Constance Smart, subject to the satisfaction, within three years, of the cognovit note for $9000. | 3 | 2007–2021 |
Kocsorak v. Cleveland Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1986Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595 , 24 L.Ed. 793 ; Chandler v. Home, 23 [Ohio App.] 1 * * *.” Since these funds could not be attached through judicial processes, by an action at law, appellant should not be able to accomplish the same result through self-help, because “[w]here an obligation is not enforceable in an action at law, it cannot be set off against an opposing claim.” Koc-sorak v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 212 [ 39 O.O. 36 ], paragraph two of the syllabus. 1986Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595 , 24 L.Ed. 793 ; Chandler v. Home, 23 [Ohio App.] 1 * * *.” Since these funds could not be attached through judicial processes, by an action at law, appellant should not be able to accomplish the same result through self-help, because “[w]here an obligation is not enforceable in an action at law, it cannot be set off against an opposing claim.” Koc-sorak v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 212 [ 39 O.O. 36 ], paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 1953–1986 |
Berryhill v. Khouri
green
1 sentence2024Cuyahoga No. 109411, 2021-Ohio-504, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Miller v. Vanderlip
green
2 sentences1999As the New York Court of Appeals remarked, the opposing rule that recognizes a claim for conspiracy to breach a contract permits a plaintiff to "restate as a conspiracy that which amounts to nothing more than * * * breach of contract." Miller v. Vanderlip (1941), 285 N.Y. 116 , 33 N.E.2d 51 , 56 . 1999As the New York Court of Appeals remarked, the opposing rule that recognizes a claim for conspiracy to breach a contract permits a plaintiff to "restate as a conspiracy that which amounts to nothing more than * * * breach of contract." Miller v. Vanderlip (1941), 285 N.Y. 116 , 33 N.E.2d 51 , 56 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Edwards v. Kearzey
green
2 sentences1986Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595 , 24 L.Ed. 793 ; Chandler v. Home, 23 [Ohio App.] 1 * * *.” Since these funds could not be attached through judicial processes, by an action at law, appellant should not be able to accomplish the same result through self-help, because “[w]here an obligation is not enforceable in an action at law, it cannot be set off against an opposing claim.” Koc-sorak v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 212 [ 39 O.O. 36 ], paragraph two of the syllabus. 1986Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595 , 24 L.Ed. 793 ; Chandler v. Home, 23 [Ohio App.] 1 * * *.” Since these funds could not be attached through judicial processes, by an action at law, appellant should not be able to accomplish the same result through self-help, because “[w]here an obligation is not enforceable in an action at law, it cannot be set off against an opposing claim.” Koc-sorak v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 212 [ 39 O.O. 36 ], paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Eller v. Koehler
green
1 sentence1946Thus the law of nuisance plays between the principle that every person is entitled to use his property for any purpose that he sees fit, and the opposing principle that every man is bound to use his property in such a manner as not to injure the property of his neighbor. ’ ’ It is apparent that the members of this court, in deciding this case, must look to the evidence and subordinate the opposite legal concepts to expediency and justice, and it is our judgment that the injunction should be denied because (1) the business of raising *84 ducks is legitimate and necessary; (2) the noise therefro | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.