8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2016Again, there are no affidavits attached to plaintiff’s written motion, nor did he present any evidence at either hearing as to the significance of the aforementioned documents. -16- {¶ 12} The court noted, quoting Mount Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints and Home Improvement Center, Inc., 64 Ohio App.2d 285 , 413 N.E.2d 850 (8th Dist. 1979), that “ ‘[w]here the trial court grants a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the [Civ.R. 60(B)] motion, evidence must be introduced at the hearing to satisfy the three- pronged test” announced in GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, 2016Again, there are no affidavits attached to plaintiff’s written motion, nor did he present any evidence at either hearing as to the significance of the aforementioned documents. -16- {¶ 12} The court noted, quoting Mount Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints and Home Improvement Center, Inc., 64 Ohio App.2d 285 , 413 N.E.2d 850 (8th Dist. 1979), that “ ‘[w]here the trial court grants a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the [Civ.R. 60(B)] motion, evidence must be introduced at the hearing to satisfy the three- pronged test” announced in GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 506 , 2008-Ohio-4827 , ¶ 18, citing Belvedere Condominium Owners’ Assn. v. R.E. 2021“The corporate form may be disregarded and individual shareholders held liable for wrongs committed by the corporation when (1) control over the corporation by those to be held liable was so complete that the corporation has no separate mind, will, or existence of its own, (2) control over the corporation by those to be held liable was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity, and (3) injury or unjust loss resulted to the plaintiff from such control and wrong.” Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶76} The | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Companies, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Roark Cos., Ins., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 , 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993), established a three- pronged test for courts to use when deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil. 2021Roark Cos., Ins., 67 Ohio St.3d 274 , 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993), established a three- pronged test for courts to use when deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil. | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Schuller v. United States Steel Corp.
green
1 sentence2017This Court determined as follows: In essence, our reading of Kilgore, Schuller [ 103 Ohio St.3d 157 ] and Paris reveals a three pronged analysis for deciding reimbursement issues under R.C. 4123.512(F). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Mount Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints & Home Improvement Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Again, there are no affidavits attached to plaintiff’s written motion, nor did he present any evidence at either hearing as to the significance of the aforementioned documents. -16- {¶ 12} The court noted, quoting Mount Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints and Home Improvement Center, Inc., 64 Ohio App.2d 285 , 413 N.E.2d 850 (8th Dist. 1979), that “ ‘[w]here the trial court grants a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the [Civ.R. 60(B)] motion, evidence must be introduced at the hearing to satisfy the three- pronged test” announced in GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, 2016Again, there are no affidavits attached to plaintiff’s written motion, nor did he present any evidence at either hearing as to the significance of the aforementioned documents. -16- {¶ 12} The court noted, quoting Mount Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints and Home Improvement Center, Inc., 64 Ohio App.2d 285 , 413 N.E.2d 850 (8th Dist. 1979), that “ ‘[w]here the trial court grants a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the [Civ.R. 60(B)] motion, evidence must be introduced at the hearing to satisfy the three- pronged test” announced in GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.