Haught v. Kettering
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 479
Syllabus
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against appellant, who sought injunctive relief against a municipality. Appellant did not appeal from notices and orders concerning property violations and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before resorting to the common pleas court. As a result, appellant's claim was precluded. For the same reasons, appellant failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting in vacating default judgment that even though defendant should have been more careful in monitoring the progress of a complaint, it did not mean the defendant acted willfully
- defendant's carelessness in not monitoring lawsuit does not preclude relief from default under Rule 60(b)
- defendant’s carelessness in not monitoring lawsuit does not preclude relief from default under Rule 60(b)
- defendant asserted that it did not own or operate property where alleged tortious act occurred
- “good cause” shown where attorney’s conduct, though improper, did not indicate “willful pattern of disregard for the court’s orders and rules”
- facts did not support a finding that failure to appear was willful where defendant forwarded complaint to its insurance company and assumed insurance company filed an answer
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Welbaum
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.