Miller v. Mission Essential Group, L.L.C.
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 3077
Syllabus
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Trial court did not err by denying the company's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, Civ.R. 56(F) motion, or motion to reconsider the court's ruling on the Civ.R. 56(F) motion. The court's entry imposing a stay permitted the court to rule on a potentially dispositive issue during the stay, and the company failed to establish any harm resulting from the stay. The trial court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment because the company's operating agreements did not provide any basis for determining and paying the fair cash value of a dissenting member's interest. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert's testimony and the manifest weight of the evidence supported the court's determination of the fair cash value of plaintiffs' membership interests. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting the interest on the judgment at the rate of 6%. Although R.C. 1705.42(B) did not prohibit the trial court from applying minority or marketability discounts to determine the fair cash value of plaintiffs' membership interests, the court abused its discretion by applying minority and marketability discounts in the present case because the discounts resulted in a windfall to the company's remaining majority member.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a court must possess the power to appoint a private prosecutor in a contempt action as means of self-protection
- holding that a district court had the inherent power to appoint an attorney to prosecute defendants for criminal contempt
- holding that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order
- holding that, when the Executive Branch defaults, a district court has the authority to appoint a prosecutor for contempt proceedings in order “to preserve respect for the judicial system itself’
- holding that trial court erred in criminal contempt action by appointing prosecutor who had been counsel for an interested party in underlying civil litigation
- concluding that federal courts possess inherent authority to initiate “contempt proceedings for disobedience of their orders, authority which necessarily encompasses the ability to appoint a private attorney to prosecute the contempt”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Leland
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.