Shaper v. Tracy

667 N.E.2d 368, 76 Ohio St. 3d 241
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 7, 1996·No. No. 95-389·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The legal issues presented in this case are, by Shaper’s own admission, the same legal issues previously litigated by the parties in Shaper’s declaratory judgment action. In Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus, we held that “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” See, also, Superior’s Brand Meats v. Lindley (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 133, 16 O.O.3d 150, 403 N.E.2d 996.

[243]*243Litigation of the legal issues raised by Shaper’s refund claims is barred by res judicata in the instant case.

The decision of the BTA is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Sherck, JJ., concur. James R. Sherck, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Stratton, J.

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

Shaper v. Tracy, 667 N.E.2d 368, 76 Ohio St. 3d 241 (Ohio 1996).

667 N.E.2d 368 (Shaper v. Tracy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lycan v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)
2016 Ohio 422 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)
Shaper v. Tracy
1996 Ohio 89 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)