prejudgment interest hearing in Ohio

17 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Galayda v. Lake Hospital Systems, Inc.green ohio · 1994 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1998–2012 2 sentences 2012See id. 1998Sys., Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 421 , 644 N.E.2d 298 , we found that a plaintiff is relieved of any obligation to continue efforts to negotiate where he or she is told that a settlement offer will never 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO be made and any additional negotiation would be considered “a vain act.” Id. at 429, 644 N.E.2d at 304. {¶ 26} At the prejudgment interest hearing, Midwestern’s trial attorney testified that he had already told the Wagners, after they had filed the proof-of-loss claims, that “we’re not paying you one thin dime.” Based on Galayda, we conclude that the trial court did not	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center green ohio · 1994 2 sentences 2005Id. {¶ 52} In determining whether these efforts were reasonable, the trial court is not limited to the evidence presented at the prejudgment interest hearing. 2003Id. {¶ 13} In determining whether these efforts were reasonable, the trial court is not limited to the evidence presented at the prejudgment interest hearing.	5	2000–2005
Galmish v. Cicchini green ohio · 2000 2 sentences 2021The court may also review the evidence presented at trial, as well as its prior rulings and jury instructions, especially when considering such factors as the type of case, the injuries involved, applicable law, and the available defenses.” Galmish v. Cicchini, 90 Ohio St.3d 22, 34 , 734 N.E.2d 782 (2000); Stephenson at ¶ 20 . 9 {¶21} Consistent with the deference due the trial court’s exercise of discretion, we conclude the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest is not unreasonable or arbitrary. 2021The court may also review the evidence presented at trial, as well as its prior rulings and jury instructions, especially when considering such factors as the type of case, the injuries involved, applicable law, and the available defenses.” Galmish v. Cicchini, 90 Ohio St.3d 22, 34 , 734 N.E.2d 782 (2000); Stephenson at ¶ 20 . 9 {¶21} Consistent with the deference due the trial court’s exercise of discretion, we conclude the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest is not unreasonable or arbitrary.	1	2021–2021
Carden v. Miami Hardware Appliance Co., Inc. green ohioctapp · 1996 1 sentence 2010The rule for prejudgment interest should be the same without regard to whether the trier of fact is a jury or an arbitration panel * * . {¶ 34} “ * * {¶ 35} “We agree with the plaintiffs that the trial court should have set a prejudgment interest hearing.” Id. at 223, 680 N.E.2d 717 . {¶ 36} Based on the foregoing, we hold that despite the existence of the arbitration agreement, the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on appellees’ motion for prejudgment interest. {¶ 37} Next, appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellees made a good-faith effor	1	2010–2010
Noble v. Colwell green ohio · 1989 1 sentence 2007Noble v. Colwell (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 92 .	1	2007–2007
Radovanic v. Cossler green ohioctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2005Radovanic v. Cossler (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 208 . {¶ 16} We agree with those courts who have determined that work product does not lose its protected status simply because it is disseminated to an expert.	1	2005–2005
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories green ohio · 1980 1 sentence 2004Id. {¶ 7} Here, although appellant ordered a transcript of the prejudgment interest hearing, such a document was not submitted.	1	2004–2004
Cox v. Oliver MacHinery Co. green ohioctapp · 1987 1 sentence 2004Co. (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 28 , 38 . {¶ 9} Miller contends that the trial court abused its discretion by its failure to award her prejudgment interest because the evidence produced at the prejudgment interest hearing established that Allstate failed to make a good faith effort to settle.	1	2004–2004
Loder v. Burger green ohioctapp · 1996 1 sentence 2004Black, 20 Ohio App.3d at 88 citing Loder v. Burger (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 669 , 675 . {¶ 20} Furthermore, we note that in the prejudgment interest hearing, Miller put on no evidence that she made a good faith effort to settle.	1	2004–2004
Black v. Bell green ohioctapp · 1984 1 sentence 2004Black, 20 Ohio App.3d at 88 citing Loder v. Burger (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 669 , 675 . {¶ 20} Furthermore, we note that in the prejudgment interest hearing, Miller put on no evidence that she made a good faith effort to settle.	1	2004–2004
Detelich v. Gecik green ohioctapp · 1993 1 sentence 2003Detelich v. Gecik (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 793 , 796 , citing Ware v. Richey (1983), 14 Ohio App.3d 3 . {¶ 19} To determine whether a party made a good faith effort: {¶ 20} "the trial court is not limited to the evidence presented at the prejudgment interest hearing.	1	2003–2003
Ware v. Richey green ohioctapp · 1983 1 sentence 2003Detelich v. Gecik (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 793 , 796 , citing Ware v. Richey (1983), 14 Ohio App.3d 3 . {¶ 19} To determine whether a party made a good faith effort: {¶ 20} "the trial court is not limited to the evidence presented at the prejudgment interest hearing.	1	2003–2003
Royal Electric Construction Corp. v. Ohio State University green ohio · 1995 1 sentence 2000In Royal Electric v. Ohio State University (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 110 , the court considered a prejudgment interest claim against the State of Ohio arising out of a breach of contract claim.	1	2000–2000
Peyko v. Frederick green ohio · 1986 1 sentence 1990With respect to discovery pending a prejudgment interest hearing, the Supreme Court in Peyco v. Frederick (1986), 25 Ohio St. 3d 164 , stated the following in the syllabus: "1.	1	1990–1990
Maintenance Unlimited, Inc. v. Salemi green ohioctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1987Maintenance Unlimited, Inc. v. Salemi (1984), 18 Ohio App. 3d 29 , 18 OBR 54, 480 N.E. 2d 113 , paragraph three of the syllabus. 1987Maintenance Unlimited, Inc. v. Salemi (1984), 18 Ohio App. 3d 29 , 18 OBR 54, 480 N.E. 2d 113 , paragraph three of the syllabus.	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

OH 17 (1987–2021) TX 13 (1986–2015) NJ 11 (1975–2013) FL 3 (1995–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check