Jurisdiction of judicial proceedings provided for by sections 2711.01 to 2711.14, inclusive, of the Revised Code, is generally in the courts of common pleas, and actions and proceedings brought under such sections shall be brought either in the court of common pleas of the county designated by the parties to the arbitration agreement as provided in section 2711.08 of the Revised Code, which designation is an irrevocable consent of the parties thereto to such jurisdiction, or, whether or not such designation has been made, in the court of common pleas of any county in which a party in interest resides or may be summoned, or if any party in interest is a corporation, in any county in which such corporation is situated, or has or had its principal office or place of business, or in which such corporation has an office or agent, or in any county in which a summons may be served upon the president, chairman or president of the board of directors or trustees, or other chief officer.
Divine Constr. Co. v. Ohio-Am. Water Co., 599 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991). · cites it 5ד14, inclusive, of the Revised Code, is generally in the court of common pleas, and actions and proceedings brought under such sections shall be brought either in the court of common pleas of the county designated by the parties to the arbitration agreement as provided in section…”
Gerl Constr. Co. v. Medina Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 493 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1985). · cites it 3דR.C. 2711.16 of this Chapter provides: “Jurisdiction of judicial proceedings provided for by sections 2711.”
State ex rel. City of Westlake v. Corrigan, 860 N.E.2d 1017 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 2ד14, inclusive, of the Revised Code, is generally in the courts of common pleas”). {¶ 16} Second, under R.”
Hughes v. Hughes, 2020-Ohio-5026. “26 (2001) (based on the uncertainty of whether the proceedings at issue involved the same "whole issue," the court rejected the argument that the jurisdictional priority rule "patently and unambiguously divested" the respondent trial court judge of jurisdiction over an order…”
Fayette Drywall, Inc. v. Oettinger, 2019-Ohio-48. “01 through R.C. 2711.16 “ ‘do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate.”
Settle-Muter Elec. Ltd. v. Intertech Sec., LLC, 2018-Ohio-4839, 125 N.E.3d 279. “{¶ 19} Appellants next argue that SME "brought [an action] upon [an] issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration" when it asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Prompt Payment Act.”
Bailey v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 863 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2006). · cites it 4ד” Bailey argues that because ODOT scheduled the arbitration hearing in Cuyahoga County, it consented to jurisdiction of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.”
Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Akron, 2011-Ohio-3569. · cites it 3דR.C. 2711.16 defines where 5 “actions and proceedings” under R.”
Dayton Pub. Schs. v. Cummings Elmore, 2020-Ohio-820. · cites it 2ד14, inclusive, * * * , is generally in the courts of common pleas,” and “actions and proceedings brought under such sections [of the Revised Code] shall be brought either in the court of common pleas of the county designated by the parties to the arbitration agreement as…”
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.