As used in sections 2329.021 to 2329.027 of the Revised Code, "foreign judgment" means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States, or of any court of another state, that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-Ohio-3529, 73 N.E.3d 396.
State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-Ohio-3529, 73 N.E.3d 396. · cites it 4דOhio has adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, R.C. 2329.021 et seq. The purpose of the act is to give full faith and credit to foreign judgments as required by Article IV, Section 1 of the U.”
Appel v. Berger, 778 N.E.2d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2002). · cites it 4ד{¶ 17} “Assignment of error # 2 {¶ 18} “The trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to a foreign judgment that is void pursuant to the law of rendering jurisdiction.” {¶ 19} The first assignment of error addresses the application of Ohio’s statutory law regarding the…”
XPX Armor & Equip., Inc. v. SkyLIFE Co., 2021-Ohio-2559, 176 N.E.3d 821. · cites it 2ד{¶ 9} A foreign judgment may be authenticated, or domesticated, in Ohio by filing it in the court of common pleas.”
Hall v. Tucker, 829 N.E.2d 1259 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005). “” Tucker concedes that he purchased the horse in Ohio and that he used the procedures enumerated in Ohio’s version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), as codified in R.”
Dressler v. Bowling, 492 N.E.2d 446 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 2דAppellants rely on the adoption by the General Assembly of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, R.C. 2329.021 et seq., effective July 29, 1983, and contend that their lien is valid under the Act.”
Fifth Third Bank, N.A. v. Maple Leaf Expansion, Inc., 2010-Ohio-1537, 934 N.E.2d 366. “Ohio’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act, R.C. 2329.021 et seq., sets forth Ohio’s obligations under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and its federal statutory codification in Section 1738, Title 28, U.”
State ex rel. Ruessman v. Flanagan, 605 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1992). “Relator assumes that the petition to adopt the foreign alimony decree was filed under R.C. 2329.021 through 2329.027, the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), and contends that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because such decrees can only be…”
Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley v. Cadle Co., 676 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2דFirst, we discover no specific reference in R.C. 2329.021 to 2329.027 to suggest that the Civil Rules are inapplicable to such a proceeding.”
Roe v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-2714, 248 N.E.3d 886. “Next, as previously discussed in Boland, 2021-Ohio-4017 , “[t]he judgment from the federal district court was a ‘foreign judgment’ as defined by R.C. 2329.021”: “‘Foreign judgment’ means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States, or of any court of another…”
Signal Data Processing, Inc. v. Rex Humbard Found., 651 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1994). · cites it 3ד1 R.C. 2329.021 et seq. 2 governs the domestication and execution in Ohio of judgments rendered in federal courts or in the courts of other states.”
Rita Ann Distributors v. Brown Drug Co., 841 N.E.2d 400 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005). “{¶ 8} In its sole assignment of error, Brown Drug claims that the trial court erred in failing to find that the Maryland judgment was void.”
Kemper Sec., Inc. v. Schultz, 668 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995). · cites it 3דR.C. 2329.021 defines a “foreign judgment” as “any *260 judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States, or of any court of another state, that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.”
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.