consolidation hearing in Ohio

2001This subdivision (B)(2) shall be so construed and applied as to save to the parties any rights they may have to trial by jury." Thus, the general rule is that a court must " order the consolidation of a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits." Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227 , 228 .

2000Further, "Civ.R. 65(B)(2) * * * require[s] that a court order the consolidation of a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits." Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227 , 228 .

1999In Savoie, 67 Ohio St.3d at 504 , the supreme court expressed: Liability policy provisions which purport to consolidate wrongful death damages suffered by individuals are unenforceable because they directly violate the policy [that wrongful death damages should not be limited] expressed by the General Assembly and this Court.

1999Because the General Assembly emphasized in Section 10 of S.B. 20 its intent to supersede the supreme court's refusal in Savoie, 67 Ohio St.3d 500 , at paragraphs one and four of the syllabus, to enforce a consolidation clause such as the St.

2025In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, Civ.R. 42 does not require the trial court to weigh the similarities in the actions against their differences, and “by the plain terms of the rule, a simple common question of law or fact is enough to support a joint trial.” Id. {¶45} Prejudice is also a relevant consideration to a consolidation analysis under Civ.R. 42.

1984As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch (1981), 451 U.S. 390 , 395: “Should an expedited decision on the merits be appropriate, Rule 65(a)(2) *229 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a means of securing one.