State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, 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
- 2024M.A.B. v. B.R.L. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2023Tackett v. Gunnels Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022State ex rel. Target Auto Repair v. Morales (Slip Opinion) Ohio
- 2021Bradley v. Bradley Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020In re R.C.S.L-K. Ohio Ct. App.
- 201817AP-664 Ohio Ct. App.
- 2017Dinardo v. Dinardo Ohio Ct. App.
- 2017State v. Karabinos Ohio Ct. App.
- 2014Watson v. Chapman-Bowen Ohio Ct. App.
- 2013Sadlowski v. Boardman Local Schools Ohio Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The State ex rel. Booher, Appellant, v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Appellees.
Judges
- Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Attorneys
- Sharon E. Deal, for appellant.
- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee Honda of America Mfg., Inc.
- Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.
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 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.