Ron Scheiderer & Assoc. v. London

Ohio Supreme Court

Ron Scheiderer & Assoc. v. London

674 N.E.2d 373, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1520, 1997 Ohio LEXIS 3589

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1997

Docket96-2384

StatusPublished

This text of 674 N.E.2d 373 (Ron Scheiderer & Assoc. v. London) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ron Scheiderer & Assoc. v. London, 674 N.E.2d 373, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1520, 1997 Ohio LEXIS 3589 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Madison App. No. CA95-08-022. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Entry Granting Motion for Certification as follows:

[1521]*1521“The above cause is before the court pursuant to a motion to certify record filed by counsel for appellant, Daniel E. Shiffiet, on August 15, 1996. The motion avers that the judgment of this court filed on August 5,1996 in the above case is in conflict with a judgment on the same question made by the Hamilton County Court of Appeals in the case styled Riley v. Langer (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 151 [642 N.E.2d 1].

“Upon due consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that its judgment is in conflict with the above case and appellant’s motion for certification is therefore hereby GRANTED. The question for certification is whether an award for frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51 should include attorney fees incurred in prosecuting the motion for sanctions brought under R.C. 2323.51.”

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

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

Madison App. No. CA95-08-022. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Entry Granting Motion for Certification as follows:

[1521]*1521“The above cause is before the court pursuant to a motion to certify record filed by counsel for appellant, Daniel E. Shiffiet, on August 15, 1996. The motion avers that the judgment of this court filed on August 5,1996 in the above case is in conflict with a judgment on the same question made by the Hamilton County Court of Appeals in the case styled Riley v. Langer (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 151 [642 N.E.2d 1].

“Upon due consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that its judgment is in conflict with the above case and appellant’s motion for certification is therefore hereby GRANTED. The question for certification is whether an award for frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51 should include attorney fees incurred in prosecuting the motion for sanctions brought under R.C. 2323.51.”

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 N.E.2d 373, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1520, 1997 Ohio LEXIS 3589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ron-scheiderer-assoc-v-london-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack