Soler v. Evans

741 N.E.2d 144, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1418, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 201
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Soler v. Evans. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 Ohio St. 3d 432
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 24, 2001·No. 00-2181·Published

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 99AP-1020. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issues stated in the court of appeals’ journal entry filed on November 28, 2000, at pages 1-2;

“1) In an action involving multiple parties and multiple claims, must a party who has received summary judgment file a motion, pursuant to R.C. 2323.51, within twenty-one days of such summary judgment or may the party wait until twenty-one days of when the remaining claims are resolved?

’’Similarly, must a party file the motion within twenty-one days of a voluntary dismissal, pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A), when a counterclaim remains pending or may the party wait until twenty-one days of when the counterclaim is resolved?

“2) Is a general jury demand in a complaint preserved as to the issues in a counterclaim when the demand is contained in a complaint that is later dismissed pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)?”

Cook, J., dissents.

The conflict cases are Skidmore & Hall v. Rottman (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 40, 525 N.E.2d 824; and Edinger v. DeRail, Inc. (Apr. 12, 1991), Lucas App. No. L-90-158, unreported, 1991 WL 53777.

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

Soler v. Evans, 741 N.E.2d 144, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1418, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 201 (Ohio 2001).

741 N.E.2d 144 (Soler v. Evans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Skidmore Hall v. Rottman
521 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1987)