Romanchik v. Lucak

Ohio Court of Appeals

Romanchik v. Lucak

542 N.E.2d 699, 44 Ohio App. 3d 215, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 2127

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 1988

Docket55052

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 542 N.E.2d 699 (Romanchik v. Lucak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Romanchik v. Lucak, 542 N.E.2d 699, 44 Ohio App. 3d 215, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 2127 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Improper venue is not grounds for dismissal of an action. Price v. Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. (1983), 9 Ohio App. 3d 315, 9 OBR 581, 460 N.E. 2d 264. Civ. R. 3(C)(1) provides that the trial court shall transfer the cause to the county where venue lies. Accordingly, we sustain the plaintiff’s first assignment of error.

An order granting or denying a motion for change of venue is interlocutory and not subject to review until final judgment is rendered in the new jurisdiction. State, ex rel. Starner, v. DeHoff (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 163, 18 OBR 219, 480 N.E. 2d 449; State, ex rel. Allied Chem. Co., v. Aurelius *216 (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 69, 16 OBR 73, 474 N.E. 2d 618; Timson v. Young (1980), 70 Ohio App. 2d 239, 24 O.O. 3d 309, 436 N.E. 2d 538. Thus, we overrule the plaintiffs second assignment of error.

Judgment reversed and remanded for transfer of the cause.

Judgment accordingly.

Pryatel, P.J., Ann McManamon and Markus, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Improper venue is not grounds for dismissal of an action. Price v. Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. (1983), 9 Ohio App. 3d 315, 9 OBR 581, 460 N.E. 2d 264. Civ. R. 3(C)(1) provides that the trial court shall transfer the cause to the county where venue lies. Accordingly, we sustain the plaintiff’s first assignment of error.

An order granting or denying a motion for change of venue is interlocutory and not subject to review until final judgment is rendered in the new jurisdiction. State, ex rel. Starner, v. DeHoff (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 163, 18 OBR 219, 480 N.E. 2d 449; State, ex rel. Allied Chem. Co., v. Aurelius *216 (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 69, 16 OBR 73, 474 N.E. 2d 618; Timson v. Young (1980), 70 Ohio App. 2d 239, 24 O.O. 3d 309, 436 N.E. 2d 538. Thus, we overrule the plaintiffs second assignment of error.

Judgment reversed and remanded for transfer of the cause.

Judgment accordingly.

Pryatel, P.J., Ann McManamon and Markus, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 N.E.2d 699, 44 Ohio App. 3d 215, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 2127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanchik-v-lucak-ohioctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack