State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.

723 N.E.2d 571, 88 Ohio St. 3d 52

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 23, 2000·No. No. 98-1503·Published·Cited by 107 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Claimant’s arguments before us derive directly from the conclusions of law contained in the magistrate’s decision. Claimant, however, did not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from “assigning] as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any [54] finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule.”

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Claimant’s arguments before us derive directly from the conclusions of law contained in the magistrate’s decision. Claimant, however, did not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from “assigning] as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any [54] finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule.”

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., 723 N.E.2d 571, 88 Ohio St. 3d 52 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

723 N.E.2d 571 (State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related