person asserting claim in Ohio

2004City Bank (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 276 , 285 , quoting Smith v. Smith (1959), 168 Ohio St. 447 , paragraph three of the syllabus.

2002City Bank (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 276, 285 , 544 N.E.2d 612 , quoting Smith v. Smith (1959), 168 Ohio St. 447 , 7 O.O.2d 276 , 156 N.E.2d 113 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 44} Here, appellant claims that he was materially prejudiced because he relied on the Nova Scotia order.

2007More particularly, plaintiff claims defendant's counterclaim was barred by her failure to demand the return of her security deposit soon after she vacated the premises in September 2001 rather than waiting to assert it only as a counterclaim to plaintiff's complaint. {¶ 43} " `In order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches, it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by an unreasonable and unexplained delay of the person asserting his claim.' " Goff v. Walters (Oct. 28, 1998), Summit App. No. 18981, quoting Seege

1999In order to invoke the doctrine of laches, it must be established that the "person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by an unreasonable and unexplained delay of the person asserting his claim." Goff v. Walters (Oct. 28, 1998), Summit App. No. 18981, unreported at 5, quoting Seegert v. Zietlow (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 457 .

2004Rather, the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has to demonstrate that he or she has been materially prejudiced by the unreasonable and unexplained delay of the person asserting the claim.” (Citations omitted.) Still v. Hayman, 153 Ohio App.3d 487 , 2003-Ohio-4113 , 794 N.E.2d 751, at ¶ 14 . {¶ 18} First, appellant did not prove that there was an unreasonable delay on appellee’s part in asserting her claim.

2004Rather, the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has to demonstrate that he or she has been materially prejudiced by the unreasonable and unexplained delay of the person asserting the claim.” (Citations omitted.) Still v. Hayman, 153 Ohio App.3d 487 , 2003-Ohio-4113 , 794 N.E.2d 751, at ¶ 14 . {¶ 18} First, appellant did not prove that there was an unreasonable delay on appellee’s part in asserting her claim.

2006“In Ohio, to prove self-defense it must be established that the person asserting this defense had ‘ * * * a bona fide belief that he [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force.’ (Emphasis added.) ” (Bracketed material sic.) Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d at 215 , 551 N.E.2d 970 , quoting State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , 12 O.O.3d 84 , 388 N.E.2d 755 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2006“In Ohio, to prove self-defense it must be established that the person asserting this defense had ‘ * * * a bona fide belief that he [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force.’ (Emphasis added.) ” (Bracketed material sic.) Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d at 215 , 551 N.E.2d 970 , quoting State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , 12 O.O.3d 84 , 388 N.E.2d 755 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2006“In Ohio, to prove self-defense it must be established that the person asserting this defense had ‘ * * * a bona fide belief that he [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force.’ (Emphasis added.) ” (Bracketed material sic.) Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d at 215 , 551 N.E.2d 970 , quoting State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , 12 O.O.3d 84 , 388 N.E.2d 755 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2006“In Ohio, to prove self-defense it must be established that the person asserting this defense had ‘ * * * a bona fide belief that he [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force.’ (Emphasis added.) ” (Bracketed material sic.) Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d at 215 , 551 N.E.2d 970 , quoting State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , 12 O.O.3d 84 , 388 N.E.2d 755 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2005Seegert v. Zietlow (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 457 , citing Wright v. Oliver (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 10 , 517 N.E.2d 883 , syllabus; Ferree v. Sparks (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 185 , 601 N.E.2d 568 ; Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 34 , 472 N.E.2d 328 ; Smith v. Smith (1959), 168 Ohio St. 447 , 156 N.E.2d 113 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 8} Parents are obligated to support their minor children, including illegitimate children.

2005Seegert v. Zietlow (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 457 , citing Wright v. Oliver (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 10 , 517 N.E.2d 883 , syllabus; Ferree v. Sparks (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 185 , 601 N.E.2d 568 ; Connin v. Bailey (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 34 , 472 N.E.2d 328 ; Smith v. Smith (1959), 168 Ohio St. 447 , 156 N.E.2d 113 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 8} Parents are obligated to support their minor children, including illegitimate children.

2021Bd. of Elections, 70 Ohio St.3d 632, 635 , 640 N.E.2d 522 (1994); see also Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio St. 447 , 455, 156 N.E.2d 113 (1959) (“in order to successfully prosecute a claim of laches, the person asserting the claim must show that he has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the adverse party in asserting his rights”). {¶ 27} The sole assertion of prejudice made in this case is that petitioners’ “unreasonable delay not only caused this matter to become an expedited election 10 January Term, 2021 matter under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08, but it also resulted in the Court having to issue a s

2021Bd. of Elections, 70 Ohio St.3d 632, 635 , 640 N.E.2d 522 (1994); see also Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio St. 447 , 455, 156 N.E.2d 113 (1959) (“in order to successfully prosecute a claim of laches, the person asserting the claim must show that he has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the adverse party in asserting his rights”). {¶ 27} The sole assertion of prejudice made in this case is that petitioners’ “unreasonable delay not only caused this matter to become an expedited election 10 January Term, 2021 matter under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08, but it also resulted in the Court having to issue a s

2020Comm. of Ohio, 28 Ohio St.3d 383, 385 , 504 N.E.2d 30 (1986). “[I]t must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting his claim.” Id., citing Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio St. 447 , 156 N.E.2d 113 (1959), paragraph three of the 27 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS syllabus.

2020Comm. of Ohio, 28 Ohio St.3d 383, 385 , 504 N.E.2d 30 (1986). “[I]t must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting his claim.” Id., citing Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio St. 447 , 156 N.E.2d 113 (1959), paragraph three of the 27 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS syllabus.

2024However, it “presumes that the person asserting the defense engaged in actionable conduct ‘on the advice of counsel.’” Id., quoting Mancz v. McHenry, 2021- Ohio-82, ¶ 33 (2d Dist.). {¶46} As stated, Appellants served 55 new document requests despite SWN having produced nearly 1,000 pages of documents prior to the filing of the cross-motions for summary judgment.

2021Greene No. 2019-CA-74, 2021-Ohio-82, ¶ 33 .

2014Montgomery No. 25507, 2013-Ohio-3649 at ¶ 16 . {¶ 15} “ ‘[I]n order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting his claim.’ ” Thirty-Four Corp. at 354, quoting Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio St. 447 , 156 N.E.2d 113 (1959), paragraph three of the syllabus.

2013As such, we find that the doctrine of laches may be used as a defense in a taxpayer lawsuit where it is shown "that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting his claim." Kelly, 2004-Ohio-3913 at ¶ 20 .

2011Cater v. N. Olmsted, 69 Ohio St.3d 315, 325 , 1994-Ohio-488 , 631 N.E.2d 1048 (“elements of a laches defense are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for such delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party”). {¶ 31} Delay in asserting a right does not of itself constitute laches, and in order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asser

2011Cater v. N. Olmsted, 69 Ohio St.3d 315, 325 , 1994-Ohio-488 , 631 N.E.2d 1048 (“elements of a laches defense are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for such delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party”). {¶ 31} Delay in asserting a right does not of itself constitute laches, and in order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asser

2010THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: LACHES {¶ 50} Laches is defined as “ ‘ “an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party.” ’ ” Hayman v. Hayman, 184 Ohio App.3d 97 , 2009-Ohio-4855 , 919 N.E.2d 797, ¶ 47 , quoting Smith v. Smith (1957), 107 Ohio App. 440, 443-444 , 8 O.O.2d 424 , 146 N.E.2d 454 . “ ‘Delay in asserting a right does not of itself constitute laches, and in order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has bee

2010THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: LACHES {¶ 50} Laches is defined as “ ‘ “an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party.” ’ ” Hayman v. Hayman, 184 Ohio App.3d 97 , 2009-Ohio-4855 , 919 N.E.2d 797, ¶ 47 , quoting Smith v. Smith (1957), 107 Ohio App. 440, 443-444 , 8 O.O.2d 424 , 146 N.E.2d 454 . “ ‘Delay in asserting a right does not of itself constitute laches, and in order to successfully invoke the equitable doctrine of laches it must be shown that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has bee

2007See, also, Korodi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 1 , 3-4 ; Yo-Can, Inc. v. The Yogurt Exchange, Inc. , 149 Ohio App.3d 513 , 2002-Ohio-5194 , at ¶ 42 . {¶ 22} "Common law fraud must be pleaded with particularity under Civ.R. 9(B), a rule that places a higher burden than is normally required upon the person asserting such a claim to support general allegations with specific facts." Reasoner v. State Farm Mut.