Gauthier v. Gauthier
Citations
- 234 N.E.3d 1168
- 2024 Ohio 266
Syllabus
ATTORNEY FEES – PROF.COND.R. 1.5 – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – DUE PROCESS – CONTINUANCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION – JURISDICTION – AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION – APP.R. 4(B)(2): Where a reviewing court is able to discern how the trial court arrived at an award of attorney fees and costs and to conduct a meaningful review of that award, the trial court does not err in failing to provide an explanation for the award. The trial court did not err in failing to separately discuss the factors in Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 where the record failed to establish that the factors were not included in the lodestar calculation. When awarding attorney fees, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying an increased hourly rate to historical work that was performed when a lower hourly rate was in effect where the motion for fees and costs had been pending for approximately nine years, an expert opined on the reasonableness of the increased rate, and no competing expert testimony was introduced. Where plaintiff failed in the obligation to parse defendant's billing records and identify instances of improper billing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the total amount of fees and costs requested. The trial court did not arbitrarily exclude plaintiff from a remand hearing on the amount of attorney fees to be awarded where plaintiff had previously been granted two continuances over defendant's objection, the trial court offered to allow plaintiff to participate by Zoom and to consult with his counsel during the hearing, the fee motion had been pending for nine years, and plaintiff failed to establish how his representation was impeded by his nonappearance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for a continuance that was sought because plaintiff suffered from COVID where plaintiff had already obtained two continuances over defendant's objection, the motion that was the subject of the hearing for which a continuance was sought had been p
Judges: Crouse
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Fox v. ViceSupreme Court· 2011-06-06· cited 1,695×
- Alford v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1931-02-24· cited 1,352×
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court· 1991-03-27· cited 351×
- State v. GreenOhio Supreme Court· 1993-04-21· cited 211×
- Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. HustedSixth Circuit· 2016-08-01· cited 189×
- Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co., Inc.Sixth Circuit· 2007-12-18· cited 177×
- State v. Froman (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-09-24· cited 62×
- State ex rel. Harris v. RubinoOhio Supreme Court· 2018-12-20· cited 42×
- Carlisle v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1978-08-14· cited 33×
- Helminski v. Ayerst LaboratoriesSixth Circuit· 1985-06-25· cited 25×
- Tridico v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2017-01-30· cited 20×
- Bennett v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-12-12· cited 14×
- George Lane Beverly Jones, United States of America, Intervenor v. State of Tennessee, Polk County, TennesseeSixth Circuit· 2003-01-10· cited 12×
- Chapel v. Wheeler Growth Co.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2023-11-03· cited 12×
- Edlong Corp. v. NadathurOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-03-22· cited 11×
- Calypso Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. 180 Indus., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2021-04-06· cited 11×
- State v. PittsOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-11-23· cited 10×
- Henrietta M. Faucher, Etc. v. Dolores Knoll Lopez, Louise M. Giovannoni, and Joseph E. HazelNinth Circuit· 1969-05-13· cited 9×
- Speigel v. IanniOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-10-20· cited 5×
- Shertok v. Wallace Group Gen. Dentistry For Today, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2020-09-09· 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.