Duck Creek v. O'Dell
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 1051
Syllabus
Motion for relief from judgment Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5) reasonable time abuse of discretion. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5) as untimely filed where appellants did not meet the \reasonable time\ requirement of Civ.R. 60(B) because they offered no explanation regarding why they waited nearly ten years after judgment to file the motion.
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court· 1976-07-21· cited 2,230×
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court· 1988-03-23· cited 956×
- State v. MorrisOhio Supreme Court· 2012-06-05· cited 478×
- State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-05-13· cited 325×
- Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court· 1996-06-28· cited 290×
- State v. BradyOhio Supreme Court· 2008-09-11· cited 146×
- State v. ConradOhio Supreme Court· 1990-03-21· cited 21×
- Bank of New York v. ElliotOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-11-15· cited 20×
- Simmons v. SimmonsOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-09-13· cited 9×
- Household Realty v. CipperleyOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-09-24· cited 6×
- Mayer v. MayerOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-04-20· cited 4×
- Miller v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-05-05· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.