As used in this chapter, "person" means any person, partnership, joint-stock company, unincorporated association, society, municipal corporation, or other corporation.
State ex rel. Oliver v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2102 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 2ד*1209 Oliver's complaints in the common pleas court did not fall within the scope of the Declaratory Judgment Act, R.C. 2721.01 et seq. He was not seeking a declaration of his rights under the sentencing statute, because those rights were clear: his sentence was to run…”
Preferred Risk Ins. v. Gill, 507 N.E.2d 1118 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 2דR.C. 2721.01 provide^: “As used in sections 2721.”
Mid-Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St. 3d 133 (Ohio 2007). “We recognized a conflict regarding both the appropriate standard of review and “[wjhether an insurer may maintain a declaratory judgment action pursuant to R.C. 2721.01 et seq. to determine the rights of parties to an automobile accident under the terms and conditions of the…”
Malloy v. City of Westlake, 370 N.E.2d 457 (Ohio 1977). · cites it 2ד14 that: “Sections 2721.01 to 2721.15, inclusive, of the Revised Code shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate their general purpose to make the law of this state uniform with the law of those states which enact similar sections * * *107 In states which have…”
State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4138 (Ohio 2019). “Norris contends that the trial court imposed concurrent sentences through its docket and that the docket—rather than the 1998 nunc pro tunc entry imposing consecutive sentences—controls. {¶ 18} The court of appeals rejected Norris’s argument, holding that a declaratory-judgment…”
City of Urbana ex rel. Newlin v. Downing, 539 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1989). “It provides: “(A) Without limitation on the persons otherwise entitled to bring an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to sections 2721.01 to 2721.15 of the Ohio Revised Code, involving the same issue, the following persons have standing to bring such an action to determine…”
Jones v. Vill. of Chagrin Falls, 674 N.E.2d 1388 (Ohio 1997). “57 provides: “The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to Sections 2721.01 to 2721.15, inclusive, of the Revised Code, shall be in accordance with these rules.”
State Ex Rel. Afscme v. Taft, 804 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “{¶ 25} We note that in addressing the remaining assignments of error, we necessarily are reviewing the trial court’s orders granting declaratory relief, the predicate for its granting a permanent injunction and a writ of mandamus.”
Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc., 242 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 2ד03, Revised Code, which reads, so far as pertinent: *51 “Any person [defined in Section 2721.01, Revised Code, to mean a ‘municipal corporation,’ such as Canton] * # * whose rights [here, the city, as enforcer of the law, and the defendant permit holder as enforcee thereof] * .”
Wagner v. City of Cleveland, 574 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “57 states as follows: “The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to Sections 2721.01 to 2721.15, inclusive, of the Revised Code, shall be in accordance with these rules.”
M6 Motors, Inc. v. Nissan of N. Olmsted, L.L.C., 2014 Ohio 2537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶19} In order to obtain relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, R.C. 2721.01, et seq., a party must establish: (1) a real controversy exists between the parties; (2) the controversy is justiciable; and (3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.”
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.