PRUSZYNSKI ET AL., APPELLEES,
v.
REEVES; KAUFMAN ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Supreme Court of Ohio.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted October 16, 2007.
Decided February 14, 2008.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Dinn, Hochman & Potter, L.L.C., and Steven B. Potter, for appellees.
Pfau, Pfau & Marando and John C. Pfau; and Denise B. Workum, for appellants Charles Kaufman III, Charles Kaufman Jr., and Dinah Kaufman.
Koeth, Rice & Leo Co., L.P.A., Clark D. Rice, and Shawn W. Schlesinger, for appellants Vance Van Driest and Marlene Van Driest.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
O'CONNOR, J.
{¶ 1} Today we decide an issue that has caused much consternation among the trial and appellate courts in this state. Does a motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(C) require the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing before rendering a ruling? For the reasons that follow, we hold that a trial court must set a date certain for an evidentiary hearing...
Let's get started
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.
