HORMAN v. VEVERKA

No. 86-952.

30 Ohio St. 3d 41 (1987)

HORMAN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. VEVERKA ET AL., APPELLEES.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided April 15, 1987.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., W. Patrick Murray and William H. Bartle, for appellants.

Buckingham, Holzapfel, Zeiher, Waldock & Schell Co., L.P.A., and Kevin J. Zeiher, for appellee David L. Veverka.

Flynn, Py & Kruse Co., L.P.A., and Charles W. Waterfield, for appellee Alan R. Robinson.

Manahan, Pietrykowski & Bamman, William F. Pietrykowski and Bernard M. Striegel, Jr., for appellee Thomas L. Corogin.


Per Curiam.

The issue presented is whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the decision of a trial court to vacate a dismissal for want of prosecution and to reinstate a case on its docket.

Here it seems clear that the trial judge did not intend his dismissal of August 22, 1984 to be with prejudice. The trial judge had not, as required by Civ. R. 41(B), given notice to plaintiffs' counsel prior to issuing that order. The order of vacation...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases