statute will control rule in Ohio

13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2023 2 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Slattergreen ohio · 1981 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1984–2019 2 sentences 2019See, e.g., State v. Slatter, 66 Ohio St.2d 452, 454 , 423 N.E.2d 100 (1981) (“a statute will control a rule on matters of substantive law”). {¶ 11} This does not mean that the Rules of Superintendence pertaining to court records are unconstitutional or that they have no application to this case. 2019See, e.g., State v. Slatter, 66 Ohio St.2d 452, 454 , 423 N.E.2d 100 (1981) (“a statute will control a rule on matters of substantive law”). {¶ 11} This does not mean that the Rules of Superintendence pertaining to court records are unconstitutional or that they have no application to this case.	2	2
Ferguson v. State (Slip Opinion)green ohio · 2017 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023Accord Ferguson v. State, 151 Ohio St.3d 265 , 2017-Ohio-7844 , 87 N.E.3d 1250 , ¶ 21. {¶ 33} “Civ.R. 1(C) limits the preemptive reach of the Civil Rules” because it says that “ ‘[t]hese rules, to the extent that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, shall not apply to procedure * * * in all other special statutory proceedings; provided, that where any statute provides for procedure by a general or specific reference to all the statutes governing procedure in civil actions such procedure shall be in accordance with these rules.’ ” Ferguson at ¶ 21, quoting Civ.R. 1(C).	1	1

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 (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Boyer v. Boyer green ohio · 1976 2 sentences 2023The Modern Courts Amendment, Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, “along with Civ.R. 1(A), recognizes that where conflicts arise between the Civil Rules and the statutory law, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive law.” Boyer v. Boyer, 46 Ohio St.2d 83, 86 , 346 N.E.2d 286 (1976). 2023Where a procedural rule and a statutory provision conflict, “‘the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive law.’” Ferguson at ¶ 20, quoting Boyer v. Boyer, 46 Ohio St.2d 83, 86 , 346 N.E.2d 286 (1976). {¶11} Here, if Crim.R. 15(A) displaces R.C. 2945.50, Caroline’s did not allege that Childers would be unable or prevented from attending a trial or hearing, and, on that basis alone, the motion to depose Childers was properly overruled.	9	1981–2023
Morrison v. Steiner green ohio · 1972 2 sentences 2009Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 , quoting Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , paragraph one of the syllabus. "[It] defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particular action." Morrison at 87. 1976The Amendment, along with ,Civ...R. 1(A), recognizes that where conflicts arise between the Civil Rules and the statutory law, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive, .law State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 208, 210 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 86, 88 ; Krause, Admr., v. State (1972), 31 Ohio St. 2d 132, 145 .	6	1976–2009
Morgan v. Western Electric Co. green ohio · 1982 2 sentences 2009Co., Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 278 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that "where conflicts arise between the Civil Rules or Appellate Rules and the statutory law, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive law." Id. at 281 , citing Boyer v. Boyer (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 83 , 86 . {¶ 16} "Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits." BCL Ents. 2009Co., Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 278 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that "where conflicts arise between the Civil Rules or Appellate Rules and the statutory law, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive law." Id. at 281 , citing Boyer v. Boyer (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 83 , 86 . {¶ 16} "Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits." BCL Ents.	5	2006–2009
Krause v. State green ohio · 1972 2 sentences 2006Boyer v. Boyer (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 83 , 86 ; State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 208 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (subject matter jurisdiction of a municipal court contrasted with venue); Krause v. State (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 132 , 145." {¶ 17} "`Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits * * .'" BCL Enterprises, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 , citing Morrison, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus. "[It] defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particu 1976*The Amendment, along with ,Civ...R. 1(A), recognizes that where conflicts arise between the Civil Rules and the statutory law, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive, .law State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 208, 210 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 86, 88 ; Krause, Admr., v. State (1972), 31 Ohio St. 2d 132, 145 .	5	1976–2006
State v. Hughes green ohio · 1975 2 sentences 2006Boyer v. Boyer (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 83 , 86 ; State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 208 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (subject matter jurisdiction of a municipal court contrasted with venue); Krause v. State (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 132 , 145." {¶ 17} "`Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits * * .'" BCL Enterprises, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 , citing Morrison, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus. "[It] defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particu 1976*The Amendment, along with ,Civ...R. 1(A), recognizes that where conflicts arise between the Civil Rules and the statutory law, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure and the statute will control the rule on matters of substantive, .law State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 208, 210 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 86, 88 ; Krause, Admr., v. State (1972), 31 Ohio St. 2d 132, 145 .	5	1976–2006
BCL Enterprises, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control green ohio · 1997 2 sentences 2009Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 , quoting Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , paragraph one of the syllabus. "[It] defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particular action." Morrison at 87. 2006Boyer v. Boyer (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 83 , 86 ; State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 208 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86 (subject matter jurisdiction of a municipal court contrasted with venue); Krause v. State (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 132 , 145." {¶ 17} "`Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits * * *.'" BCL Enterprises, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 467 , 469 , citing Morrison, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus. "[It] defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particu	4	2006–2009

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check