Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Cleveland Construction, Inc., v. Carr

    Case No. 98-A-0002 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 18, 1998)   Cited 3 times

    "When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are necessary to procure the discovery sought." In Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 124, 127, the court stated: "We therefore adopt a reasonable and literal construction of the language of R.C. 2317.48 and hold that an action for discovery pursuant to R.C. 2317.48 is limited solely to interrogatories specifically concerning the facts necessary to the complaint or answer * * *. Furthermore, we hold that the statutory language contemplates that the person `claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action' must in his statutory action for discovery set forth `the necessity and the grounds for the action' and the facts sought and deemed necessary to state a cause of action."

  2. Bethel Oil & Gas, LLC v. Redbird Dev.

    2024 Ohio 5285 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    {¶76} Additionally, as we noted above, before the 1970 enactment of "the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure in 1970, this state's civil practice required verified and particularized pleadings." Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co., 44 Ohio St.3d 124, 125 (1989). However, "[w]ith the advent of the Modern Courts Amendment and notice pleading, the Civil Rules provided for extensive pretrial discovery and disclosure of facts within the knowledge and control of the litigants.

  3. Stepp v. Wiseco Piston Co.

    2013 Ohio 5832 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    Appellant's Brief at 7. Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co., 44 Ohio St.3d 124, 127, 541 N.E.2d 1031 (1989) (an action for discovery "occupies a small niche between an unacceptable 'fishing expedition' and a short and plain statement of a complaint or a defense filed pursuant to the Civil Rules"); Baker v. Cooper Farms Cooked Meats, 3rd Dist. Van Wert No. 15-09-03, 2009-Ohio-3320, ¶ 11 ("[a]n action for discovery is to be used only to uncover facts necessary for pleading, not to gather proof to support a claim or to determine whether a cause of action exists"); Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Carr, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 98-A-0002, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6145, 9 (Dec. 18, 1998) ("a potential cause of action is not a sufficient ground for a court to grant a complainant discovery under R.C. 2317.48"). {¶20} We agree with the trial court that Stepp adequately pled the elements of a cause of action for defamation, only omitting the identity of the persons making the defamatory statements.

  4. Smith v. Baumgartner

    Court of Appeals Nos. OT-01-018, OT-01-014, Trial Court No. 00-CVH-244 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2002)   Cited 1 times

    Appellee stated that he needed such information, which could be provided through answers to certain interrogatories, "in order to determine the claims and rights against [appellants] and to assess whether to file a civil complaint for defamation against [appellants]." In Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 124, 127, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that R.C. 2317.48 "occupies a small niche between an unacceptable `fishing expedition' and a short and plain statement of a complaint or a defense filed pursuant to the Civil Rules." The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff in Poulos was entitled to answers to interrogatories "limited and directed toward only those facts necessary to draft a complaint."