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.
17 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schmidt v. Avco Corp.green2 sentences2022Co., 646 F.3d 347, 352-53 (6th Cir.2011). {¶ 17} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court " ' "make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether class action Nos. 22AP-36 and 22AP-37 8 is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved there." ' " Madyda at ¶ 16, quoting Davis at ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984). {¶ 18} In this case, the appellees' market-based damage theory and th 2022Co., 646 F.3d 347, 352-53 (6th Cir.2011). {¶ 21} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court " ' "make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether class action is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved No. 22AP-226 9 there." ' " Madyda at ¶ 16, quoting Davis at ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984). {¶ 22} In this case, Keba's market-based damage theory and his expert's proposed | 3 | 5 |
Randleman v. Fidelity National Title Insurancegreen2 sentences2022Co., 646 F.3d 347, 352-53 (6th Cir.2011). {¶ 17} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court " ' "make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether class action Nos. 22AP-36 and 22AP-37 8 is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved there." ' " Madyda at ¶ 16, quoting Davis at ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984). {¶ 18} In this case, the appellees' market-based damage theory and th 2022Co., 646 F.3d 347, 352-53 (6th Cir.2011). {¶ 21} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court " ' "make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether class action is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved No. 22AP-226 9 there." ' " Madyda at ¶ 16, quoting Davis at ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984). {¶ 22} In this case, Keba's market-based damage theory and his expert's proposed | 3 | 3 |
Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2009The general purpose of the superiority requirement under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) is so that class actions may be maintained for “cases in which the efficiency and economy of common adjudication outweigh the interests of individual autonomy.” Hamilton, 82 Ohio St.3d at 80, 694 N.E.2d 442 . 2009The general purpose of the superiority requirement under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) is so that class actions may be maintained for “cases in which the efficiency and economy of common adjudication outweigh the interests of individual autonomy.” Hamilton, 82 Ohio St.3d at 80, 694 N.E.2d 442 . | 1 | 5 |
Montieth v. Twin Falls United Methodist Church, Inc.green1 sentence2016Compare Montieth v. Twin Fall United Methodist Church, Inc., 68 Ohio App.2d 219, 225 (9th Dist.1980) (reversing judgment in favor of adverse holder based on determination that true title holders’ conducting of survey with intent to grade disputed property was “[a]n entry upon the disputed land [that] evokes a positive interruption of the statutory period and an unequivocal manifestation of intent to reclaim the property”). {¶18} On appeal, Rails-to-Trails emphasizes that by negotiating a possible sale of the railroad corridor with its predecessor-in-interest, Mr. Bilinovich acceded to the supe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ojalvo v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences1998Were it otherwise, it would be next to impossible to certify a class, since the impracticability requirement of Civ.R. 23(A)(1) and the superiority requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3) could not be satisfied simultaneously. {¶ 59} Second, Ohio Savings argues that “[a] record of differing damages also supported the Trial Court’s sound discretion in denying class certification.” However, we have specifically held, in accordance with the overwhelming weight of authority, that “a trial court should not dispose of a class certification solely on the basis of disparate damages.” Ojalvo, supra, 12 Ohio St. 1998Were it otherwise, it would be next to impossible to certify a class, since the impracticability requirement of Civ.R. 23(A)(1) and the superiority requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3) could not be satisfied simultaneously. {¶ 59} Second, Ohio Savings argues that “[a] record of differing damages also supported the Trial Court’s sound discretion in denying class certification.” However, we have specifically held, in accordance with the overwhelming weight of authority, that “a trial court should not dispose of a class certification solely on the basis of disparate damages.” Ojalvo, supra, 12 Ohio St. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022Co., 646 F.3d 347, 352-53 (6th Cir.2011). {¶ 17} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court " ' "make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether class action Nos. 22AP-36 and 22AP-37 8 is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved there." ' " Madyda at ¶ 16, quoting Davis at ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984). {¶ 18} In this case, the appellees' market-based damage theory and th 2022Co., 646 F.3d 347, 352-53 (6th Cir.2011). {¶ 17} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court " ' "make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether class action Nos. 22AP-36 and 22AP-37 8 is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved there." ' " Madyda at ¶ 16, quoting Davis at ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984). {¶ 18} In this case, the appellees' market-based damage theory and th | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lynch v. Dial Finance Co. of Ohio No. 1
green
2 sentences2018Co. of Ohio No. 1, Inc. , 101 Ohio App.3d 742 , 656 N.E.2d 714 (8th Dist.1995), plaintiffs-appellants filed an action in April 1992 alleging that the defendants violated the Second Mortgage Loan Act by charging them for credit accident and health insurance to secure three loans made between 1976 and 1978. 2018Co. of Ohio No. 1, Inc. , 101 Ohio App.3d 742 , 656 N.E.2d 714 (8th Dist.1995), plaintiffs-appellants filed an action in April 1992 alleging that the defendants violated the Second Mortgage Loan Act by charging them for credit accident and health insurance to secure three loans made between 1976 and 1978. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland
green
1 sentence2008Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77 , 80 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank
green
1 sentence2007Bank , 82 Ohio St.3d 67 , 1998-Ohio-365 , but distinguished it from the present case on the ground that "[u]nlike in Hamilton , the present case does not involve a clear misstatement." With regard to appellant's claim of deceptive trade practice, the trial court found that the superiority requirement was not met. {¶ 8} Appellant appeals, raising one assignment of error: {¶ 9} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION." {¶ 10} A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a class action may be maintained and that determination will not be disturbed | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corporation
green
1 sentence2004A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone's (usually an attorney's) labor." Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (C.A.7, 1997), 109 F.3d 338 , 344 . {¶ 48} The existence of unique defenses and factual issues is part of the court's consideration of the superiority requirement under Civ.R. 23(B)(3). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.