Notes of Decisions
City of Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006).
· cites it 2× “We hold that Geiger is satisfied in this case and therefore severance is appropriate.”
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021).
· cites it 2× “19, which states: Subject to sections 163.07 and 163.09 of the Revised Code, any party may prosecute appeals as in other civil actions from the judgment of the court.”
City of Akron v. Gay, 351 N.E.2d 475 (Ohio 1976).
· cites it 2× “08 provides, as pertinent: “ * * * Any answer shall be filed on or before the third Saturday after the return day of the summons or service by publication as set forth in Section 163.07 of the Revised Code. No extension of time for filing of an answer shall he granted.”
City of Middletown v. Campbell, 486 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “25, 1981) modifies the answer period as follows: “An answer shall be served in accordance with Civil Rule 12.”
Morr v. Crouch, 249 N.E.2d 780 (Ohio 1969).
· cites it 2× “Present Section 163.07, Revised Code, refers to a “journalization of a settlement entry,” and present Section 163.”
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pope, 374 N.E.2d 406 (Ohio 1978).
“19 states the following: “Subject to sections 163.07 and 163.09 of the Revised Code, any party may prosecute appeals as in other civil actions from the judgment of the court.”
City of Toledo v. Custer, 265 N.E.2d 284 (Ohio 1970).
· cites it 2× “Any answer shall be filed on or before the third Saturday after the return day of the summons or service by publication as set forth in Section 163.07 of the Revised Code. No extension of time for filing of an answer shall be granted.”
N. Olmstead v. Rock, 2013 Ohio 3152 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” NOCO Section 163.07(b)(1)(G)(3) provides as follows: (G) General maintenance.”
Dublin v. RiverPark Grp., L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 1790 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
“{¶ 36} Finally, to the extent River Ridge argues Dublin's failure to provide it with notice of the complaint, pursuant to R.C. 163.07, prevented Dublin from commencing the appropriation action, R.”
Pepper Pike v. Hirschauer, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
“As we have already stated, the City's action was neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable and was therefore proper.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.07(B) — 1 case
Pepper Pike v. Hirschauer, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
“As we have already stated, the City's action was neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable and was therefore proper.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.07(b)(1)(G)(3) — 1 case
N. Olmstead v. Rock, 2013 Ohio 3152 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“” NOCO Section 163.07(b)(1)(G)(3) provides as follows: (G) General maintenance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.