9 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1933–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ulmer v. Fulton, Supt.green2 sentences2010Kane v. Bloodgood (N.Y.1823), 7 Johns Ch. 90; Paschall v. Hinderer (1876), 28 Ohio St. 568 ; Douglas v. Corry, supra [(1889)], 40 [46] Ohio St. 349, 21 N.E. 440 . {¶ 81} “The reason why such a rule was developed by equity courts and its incorporation into the Code of Civil Procedure wherein statutes of limitation were made applicable to all actions, whether formerly legal or equitable (Chinn v. Trustees (1877), 32 Ohio St. 236 ), is perceivable when consideration is given to the nature of the technical trust cognizable solely in equity. {¶ 82} “ ‘A trust is the right, enforceable in equity, to 1999The Supreme Court of Ohio similarly described the purpose and intent of R.C. 2305.22 : "The rule developed by equity courts was that in suits between a cestui que trust and a trustee for the enforcement of a trust that was a continuing technical trust not recognized at law but within the proper, peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of equity, where the trust was being respected by the trustee no statute of limitation could be interposed by the trustee as a defense. * * * "The reason why such a rule was developed by equity courts and its incorporation into the Code of Civil Procedure wherein sta | 1 | 2 |
Rondy v. Rondygreen1 sentence2015Consequently, the trustee can only challenge the substance of the trial court’s May 21, 2013 judgment in this appeal. {¶37} As a separate point regarding the first two assignments, as part of the trustee’s legal discussion under the first assignment, he cites Rondy v. Rondy, 13 Ohio App.3d 19, 22 (9th Dist.1983), for the general proposition that a judgment of a trial court can be declared void if the court proceeded in a way contrary to due process. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1949Jur., page 227, Sec. 180 et seq.’ I have always liked the statement of Justice Brewer, referred to as Justice Brown in Trustee’s brief, of the United States Supreme Court, in U. S. v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U. S. 224 : ‘But a wisdom born after the event is the cheapest of all. wisdom. 1947Supreme Court, in U. S. v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U. S. 224 : “But a wisdom born after the event is the cheapest of all wisdom. | 2 | 1947–1949 |
Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc. , 66 Ohio St.3d 64 , 66 * * * (1993). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State ex rel. Butler County Children Services Board v. Sage
green
2 sentences2017Bd. v. Sage , 95 Ohio St.3d 23 , 25, 764 N.E.2d 1027 (2002). {¶ 19} We do acknowledge that this case has the factual distinction of including both a motion for removal of the trustee and a claim for relief requesting removal. 2017Bd. v. Sage , 95 Ohio St.3d 23 , 25, 764 N.E.2d 1027 (2002). {¶ 19} We do acknowledge that this case has the factual distinction of including both a motion for removal of the trustee and a claim for relief requesting removal. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank
green
1 sentence1950The Common Pleas Court overruled the Trustee’s motion on the authority of Sprague v. Ticonic Bank, 307 U. S. 161 , and its own action in allowing attorneys fees and expenses to other certificate holders who were parties advérse to the applicants in two of the above cases. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Ellis v. Kelsey
green
1 sentence1933Held, that the trustees were entitled to credits in their accounts for reasonable counsel fees expended by them in defense of these actions.” The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois in the case of Patterson v. Trust Company, 122 N. E. 55 (1919) held that: “When a beneficiary brings a groundless suit against his trustees the solicitors fees and expenses of the trustee in defense thereof are to be paid out of the complainant's share in the trust estate and not charged against the estate generally, nor a general fund upon which the co-beneficiaries would have to contribute.” The Court of Appea | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Patterson v. Northern Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1933Held, that the trustees were entitled to credits in their accounts for reasonable counsel fees expended by them in defense of these actions.” The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois in the case of Patterson v. Trust Company, 122 N. E. 55 (1919) held that: “When a beneficiary brings a groundless suit against his trustees the solicitors fees and expenses of the trustee in defense thereof are to be paid out of the complainant's share in the trust estate and not charged against the estate generally, nor a general fund upon which the co-beneficiaries would have to contribute.” The Court of Appea | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.