Morgan v. Jones
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 2432
Syllabus
CIV.R. 59(B) — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — VACATUR — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — RECEIVERS — CIV.R. 66 — DISCHARGE OF RECEIVERS — EQUITY — DUE PROCESS — NOTICE — HEARING — RES JUDICATA — SANCTIONS — ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE — VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR: Because the trial court discharged the receiver without holding a \trial\ within the meaning of Civ.R. 59(B), defendant's motion for a new trial under that rule was a nullity, and the trial court's order denying it was void ab initio and subject to vacatur. Before discharging a receiver, the appointing court must provide interested parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Defendant-appellant was accorded adequate notice of the need to object to the receiver's discharge and adequate opportunity to do so where the receiver filed a final report indicating (1) that the purpose of the receivership had been completed, (2) that the receivership was insolvent such that it lacked funds to disburse, and (3) that the receiver's outstanding fees were settled from the proceeds of the receivership estate, and where defendant-appellant had three weeks after service of that final report to raise objections before the trial court ordered the receiver discharged. The trial court did not err by including findings regarding the good faith of its receiver and the propriety of the receiver's fees in its discharge order without first holding a hearing, where defendant did not object to the receiver's performance or fees upon the filing of the final report. Defendant-appellant's substantive arguments concerning motions and issues that could have been addressed in his prior appeals are res judicata. Although defendant-appellant's citations to fictitious cases were likely the product of the improper use of generative artificial intelligence, and although this constituted a breach of defendant-appellant's obligations to the court, the court exercised its discretion not to impose sanctions in light of (1) the lack of a local rule governing the use o
Judges: Crouse
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 10,395×
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- A.A.R.P. v. TrumpSupreme Court· 2025-05-16· cited 379×
- Trump v. J. G. G.Supreme Court· 2025-04-07· cited 256×
- In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes CasesOhio Supreme Court· 2006-05-03· cited 217×
- Park v. KimSecond Circuit· 2024-01-30· cited 100×
- State v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court· 2013-10-22· cited 55×
- Norman v. Trison Development Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1992-05-12· cited 42×
- L.A. & D., Inc. v. Board of Lake County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court· 1981-07-29· cited 36×
- McPherson v. U.S. Physicians Mutual Risk Retention GroupMissouri Court of Appeals· 2003-01-31· cited 26×
- Fontain v. SandhuOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-08-11· cited 24×
- Credit Managers Association Of Southern California v. Kennesaw Life And Accident Insurance CompanyNinth Circuit· 1994-05-19· cited 22×
- Taylor v. EastonEighth Circuit· 1910-06-23· cited 19×
- Prime Equip. Group, Inc. v. SchmidtOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-06-16· cited 18×
- Hummer v. HummerOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-07-29· cited 17×
- Aviation Brake Systems, Ltd. v. VoorhisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1982-06-29· cited 13×
- Miller v. EverestSupreme Court of Iowa· 1973-11-14· cited 8×
- Morgan v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-06-01· cited 7×
- Madorsky v. Suburban Homes Co.Ohio Court of Appeals· 1933-02-06· cited 6×
- Fougere v. Estate of FougereOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-09-28· cited 6×
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.