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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lincoln Property Co. v. Rochegreen2 sentences2023Schwartzwald at ¶ 33, citing Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 90 (2005). 2021Schwartzwald at ¶ 33 , citing Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 90 (2005). | 2 | 3 |
Adlaka v. Quarantagreen1 sentence2022Mahoning No. 09 MA 134, 2010-Ohio-6509, ¶ 37-43 (concluding that the real- party-in-interest rule set forth in Civ.R. 17(A) does not apply in forcible entry and detainer proceedings because “R.C. 1923.01(C)(2) authorizes a ‘landlord’ to bring an action in forcible entry and detainer, and ‘landlord’ is defined more broadly than a real party in interest pursuant to Civ.R. 17(A)”). | 1 | 1 |
Consumer Federation of America v. Upjohn Companygreen1 sentence2012Civ.R. 17(A) does not address standing; rather, the point of the rule is that “suits by representative plaintiffs on behalf of the real parties in interest are the exception rather than the rule and should only be allowed when the real parties in interest are identifiable and the res judicata scope of the judgment can be effectively determined.” Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5017 , Knox County, Case No. 12-CA-13 7 quoting Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 90 , 126 S.Ct. 606 , 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005), citing Consumer Fedn. of Am. v. Upjohn | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shealy v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2013Assn. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328 , 2009-Ohio-1178 , 908 N.E.2d 1032 (7th Dist.), citing Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24 , 485 N.E.2d 701 (1985). {¶15} The real-party-in-interest requirement, enables the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter. 2013Assn. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328 , 2009-Ohio-1178 , 908 N.E.2d 1032 (7th Dist.), citing Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24 , 485 N.E.2d 701 (1985). {¶15} The real-party-in-interest requirement, enables the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter. | 3 | 2006–2013 |
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald
green
2 sentences2014Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2012-Ohio-5017 , the real- party-in-interest rule and standing are two separate concepts. "[T]he real-party-in-interest rule concerns only proper party joinder. 2014Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2012-Ohio-5017 , the real- party-in-interest rule and standing are two separate concepts. "[T]he real-party-in-interest rule concerns only proper party joinder. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
In Re Highland Holiday Subdivision
green
2 sentences2009The real-party-in-interest requirement, “ ‘enable[s] the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.’ ” Id. at 24-25 , 20 OBR 210, 485 N.E.2d 701 , quoting In re Highland Holiday Subdivision (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240 , 56 O.O.2d 404 , 273 N.E.2d 903 . {¶ 32} The current holder of the note and mortgage is the real party in interest in foreclosure actions. 2009The real-party-in-interest requirement, “ ‘enable[s] the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.’ ” Id. at 24-25 , 20 OBR 210, 485 N.E.2d 701 , quoting In re Highland Holiday Subdivision (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240 , 56 O.O.2d 404 , 273 N.E.2d 903 . {¶ 32} The current holder of the note and mortgage is the real party in interest in foreclosure actions. | 2 | 2009–2013 |
Setters v. Durrani
green
2 sentences2025Id. {¶93} Unlike in Setters, where Durrani merely raised a cursory Civ.R. 19 issue in his answer and did no more, in this case Durrani filed a pretrial motion pursuant to Civ.R. 19(A) to join Courtney’s and Koelblin’s insurers and again raised the issue in his JNOV and new trial motion. 2025Id. {¶93} Unlike in Setters, where Durrani merely raised a cursory Civ.R. 19 issue in his answer and did no more, in this case Durrani filed a pretrial motion pursuant to Civ.R. 19(A) to join Courtney’s and Koelblin’s insurers and again raised the issue in his JNOV and new trial motion. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McCann v. Durrani
green
2 sentences2024McCann, 2023-Ohio-3953 , 227 N.E.3d 471, at ¶ 21 . 2024McCann, 2023-Ohio-3953 , 227 N.E.3d 471, at ¶ 21 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
U.S. Bank National Association v. Marcino
green
2 sentences2013Assn. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328 , 2009-Ohio-1178 , 908 N.E.2d 1032 (7th Dist.), citing Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24 , 485 N.E.2d 701 (1985). {¶15} The real-party-in-interest requirement, enables the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter. 2013Assn. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328 , 2009-Ohio-1178 , 908 N.E.2d 1032 (7th Dist.), citing Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24 , 485 N.E.2d 701 (1985). {¶15} The real-party-in-interest requirement, enables the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Coulson v. Coulson
green
2 sentences2011Accordingly, we do not find the trial court’s determination that Spicer failed to timely assert a real-party-in-interest defense to be an abuse of discretion. {¶39} Spicer’s second basis that he is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is his assertion that U.S. Bank and SPS have committed a “fraud on the court.” In making this argument Spicer relies solely on Coulson v. Coulson, (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12 , 448 N.E.2d 809 . 2011Accordingly, we do not find the trial court’s determination that Spicer failed to timely assert a real-party-in-interest defense to be an abuse of discretion. {¶39} Spicer’s second basis that he is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is his assertion that U.S. Bank and SPS have committed a “fraud on the court.” In making this argument Spicer relies solely on Coulson v. Coulson, (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12 , 448 N.E.2d 809 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Corbett v. Ohio Building Authority
green
2 sentences2006Auth. (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 44, 49 , 619 N.E.2d 1145 . 2006Auth. (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 44, 49 , 619 N.E.2d 1145 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.