Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.
Ohio
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2020Newman v. Jones Ohio Ct. App.
- 2019Scaccia v. Fid. Invests. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2018Foster v. Foster Ohio App. Ct.
- 2017Kelly v. Swoish Ft Blue Ash, L.L.C. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2013Ocran v. Richlak Ohio Ct. App.
- 2012Hadassah v. Schwartz Ohio Ct. App.
- 2011Hull v. Astro Shapes, Inc. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2011In re K.M. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2009FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Moore Ohio Ct. App.
- 2008In re G.N. Ohio Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Jarrett, Exrx., Appellant, v. Dayton Osteopathic Hospital, Inc. et al.; Mucci, Appellee.
Judges
- Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Connors and Douglas, JJ., concur.
- Connors, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for C. Brown, J.
Attorneys
- Lang, Horenstein & Dunlevey, Wilbur S. Lang, Carmine Garofalo and Robert M. O’Neal, for appellant.
- Wiles, Doucher, Van Burén, Boyle & Casey Co., L.P.A., Daniel G. Wiles and W. Charles Curley, for appellee.
The trial court’s entry of judgment against Mucci was not a final order. When an order “adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties [it] shall not terminate the action * * * and the order * * * is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Civ. R. 54(B). An entry of judgment involving fewer than all of the claims or parties is not final unless the court expressly determines that there is “no just reason for delay.” Id.
Because the judgment entry against Mucci did not adjudicate the liabilities of all the parties and it did not contain the Civ. R. 54(B) words of “no just reason for delay,” it was subject to modification. Mucci’s motion for relief was improperly labeled a Civ. R. 60(B) motion because it did not seek relief from a final judgment. The motion and the trial court’s order vacating the judgment were instead authorized by Civ. R. 54(B).
An order vacating a judgment that was entered against less than all the parties and in which the trial court did not make an express determination that there was “no just reason for delay” is not a final, appealable order.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Connors and Douglas, JJ., concur.
Connors, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for C. Brown, J.