Ohio Court of Appeals· 9/16/2022
Mancz v. McHenry
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 3256
Syllabus
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion based on alleged fraud on the court. The trial court reasonably concluded that the motion was not timely, that the alleged conduct did not constitute a fraud on the court, and that appellant did not demonstrate that he had a meritorious defense. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Epley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
16 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×
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.Ohio Supreme Court· 1990-04-18· cited 1,562×
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court· 1988-03-23· cited 956×
- Griffey v. RajanOhio Supreme Court· 1987-11-10· cited 822×
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court· 1996-07-03· cited 452×
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. LohmanOhio Supreme Court· 1983-05-25· cited 340×
- Coulson v. CoulsonOhio Supreme Court· 1983-05-18· cited 232×
- State v. BrownOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-04-27· cited 26×
- Mancz v. McHenryOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-07-20· cited 12×
- State Ex Rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court· 2009-12-01· cited 11×
- Carpenter v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-09-23· cited 10×
- Blount v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-02-16· cited 10×
- Mancz v. McHenryOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-01-15· cited 8×
- Lundeen v. TurnerOhio Supreme Court· 2022-05-25· cited 8×
- Molnar-Satterfield v. MolnarOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-08-06· cited 7×
- Vitek v. WardOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-05-31· cited 1×
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.