(A)(1) Prejudgment interest shall be allowed with respect to a civil action on which a judgment or determination is rendered against the state for the same period of time and at the same rate as allowed between private parties to a suit.
(2) The court of claims, in its discretion, may deny prejudgment interest for any period of undue delay between the commencement of the civil action and the entry of a judgment or determination against the state, for which it finds the claimant to have been responsible.
(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2) of this section, interest shall be allowed on a judgment or determination rendered against the state in a civil action pursuant to this chapter at the same rate that is applicable to judgments rendered against private parties to a suit as specified in section 1343.03 of the Revised Code and for each day between the date of entry of the judgment or the determination pursuant to division (C) of section 2743.10 of the Revised Code and the date of payment of the judgment or determination pursuant to division (C)(3) or (6) of section 2743.19 of the Revised Code, or for sixty days from the date of entry of the judgment or the determination, whichever is less.
(2) If the court of claims renders a judgment pursuant to this chapter against the state in a civil action or the clerk of the court of claims enters an administrative determination under section 2743.10 of the Revised Code against the state in a civil action, the civil action is not based on tortious conduct, and the claimant in the court of claims prevails in any appeal of the judgment or determination, postjudgment interest shall be paid with respect to the judgment or determination rendered against the state at the same rate that is applicable to judgments rendered against private parties to a suit as set forth in section 1343.03 of the Revised Code and for each day between the date of entry of the judgment or determination and the date of payment of the judgment or determination pursuant to division (C)(3) or (6) of section 2743.19 of the Revised Code.
Royal Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Ohio State Univ., 73 Ohio St. 3d 110 (1995). · cites it 10דRather, as the General Assembly acknowledged in enacting R.C. 2743.18, prejudgment interest should be awarded as a means of fully compensating an injured plaintiff.”
Fouty v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 855 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2006). · cites it 7ד4 The award of prejudgment interest in this case is governed by R.C. 2743.18(A) and 1343.03(A). R.C. 2743.”
State ex rel. Montrie Nursing Home, Inc. v. Creasy, 449 N.E.2d 763 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 4ד” While R.C. 2743.18(A) 1 does allow prejudgment interest to be assessed against the state, we have limited R.”
Nevins v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 724 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1998). · cites it 5דTherefore, prejudgment interest is not provided for against ODOT under R.C. 2743.18. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “in determining whether to award prejudgment interest pursuant to R.”
Landis v. Grange Mut. Ins., 695 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1998). “The phrase “based on tortious conduct” now appears in R.C. 2743.18, dealing with interest on judgments in the Court of Claims, and in uncodified Section 6(A) of Am.”
Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Dev. Auth., 2022-Ohio-3148, 196 N.E.3d 878. · cites it 2ד{¶61} The Beifuss court stated that it refused “to abandon our long-standing rule in contract actions that, in the absence of a statute requiring it, or a promise to pay it, interest cannot be assessed against the state for delay in the payment of money.”
O'Brien v. Ohio State Univ., 2006-Ohio-4346, 859 N.E.2d 607. · cites it 3דApplying the undisputed financial evidence submitted in this case to the clear and unambiguous language of the damages provisions of the agreement, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $2,253,619.”
Tony Zumbo & Son Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 490 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1984). · cites it 3ד"The Court further concludes that plaintiff is by reason of defendant’s breach of contract entitled to judgment at the legal rate of ten (10%) percent from January 1, 1981 to date of judgment and then in accordance with Section 2743.18 of the Revised Code.” The first four…”
Complete Gen. Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 94 Ohio St. 3d 54 (2002). “Pursuant to R.C. 2743.18(A)(1), Complete General was entitled to prejudgment interest on all damages determined by the Court of Claims from the time of the accrual of the claim, ie.”
Shell Oil Co. v. Huttenbauer Land Co., 693 N.E.2d 1168 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997). · cites it 3דBecause the state was involved, this issue arose in the Court of Claims and was governed by R.C. 2743.18(A), which allows for an award of prejudgment interest against the state.”
Dugan & Meyers Constr. Co. v. State Dep't of Admin. Servs., 834 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005). · cites it 2דThey contend that it was error for the trial court to impose an interest rate of ten percent per annum, which was the rate applicable only when the damages flow from the breach of a contract that itself does not specify an interest rate.”
Royal Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Ohio State Univ., 73 Ohio St. 3d 110 (1995). “Rather, as the General Assembly acknowledged in enacting R.C. 2743.18, prejudgment interest should be awarded as a means of fully compensating an injured plaintiff.”
Fouty v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 855 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2006). “4 The award of prejudgment interest in this case is governed by R.C. 2743.18(A) and 1343.03(A). R.C. 2743.”
Nevins v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 724 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1998). “Therefore, prejudgment interest is not provided for against ODOT under R.C. 2743.18. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “in determining whether to award prejudgment interest pursuant to R.”
Complete Gen. Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 94 Ohio St. 3d 54 (2002). “Pursuant to R.C. 2743.18(A)(1), Complete General was entitled to prejudgment interest on all damages determined by the Court of Claims from the time of the accrual of the claim, ie.”
Fouty v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 855 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2006). “4 The award of prejudgment interest in this case is governed by R.C. 2743.18(A) and 1343.03(A). R.C. 2743.”
O'Brien v. Ohio State Univ., 2006-Ohio-4346, 859 N.E.2d 607. “Applying the undisputed financial evidence submitted in this case to the clear and unambiguous language of the damages provisions of the agreement, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $2,253,619.”
Dugan & Meyers Constr. Co. v. State Dep't of Admin. Servs., 834 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005). “They contend that it was error for the trial court to impose an interest rate of ten percent per annum, which was the rate applicable only when the damages flow from the breach of a contract that itself does not specify an interest rate.”
Fouty v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 855 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2006). “4 The award of prejudgment interest in this case is governed by R.C. 2743.18(A) and 1343.03(A). R.C. 2743.”
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.