State ex Rel. Keller v. Columbus

28 Citing cases

  1. Thevenin v. White Castle Mgmt. Co.

    2016 Ohio 1235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    {¶ 17} We review discovery issues on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. Jacobs v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 10AP–930, 2011-Ohio-3313, 2011 WL 2586741, ¶ 55, citing State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, 843 N.E.2d 838, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), citing State ex rel. The v. Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469, 692 N.E.2d 198 (1998). With regards to whether the trial court erred by striking portions of an affidavit on summary judgment we have previously held that:

  2. Martens v. Price

    2023 Ohio 4359 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    Langfan v. Carlton Gardens Co., 183 Ohio App.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-3318, ¶ 35 (3d Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 19. "Generally, a claim is not ripe if the claim rests upon 'future events that may not occur as anticipated, or may not occur at all.'"

  3. Miller v. NWD 355 McConnell LLC

    2023 Ohio 3374 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    An appellate court, therefore, will generally review the trial court's decision to grant a motion to stay discovery and motion for protective order, pursuant to Civ.R. 26, under an abuse of discretion analysis. State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.); Coon v. OhioHealth Corp., 3d Dist. No. 9 22-41, 2023-Ohio-492, ¶ 25, citing Randall v. Cantwell Mach. Co., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-786, 2013-Ohio-2744, ¶ 11. Similarly, the trial court's ruling on a Civ.R. 56(F) motion for extension of time will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

  4. T & M Machs., LLC v. Yost

    2020 Ohio 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    {¶ 18} We have previously stated that in determining whether an issue is ripe for review, a court must weigh the following: (1) the likelihood that the alleged future harm will occur, (2) the likelihood that delayed review will cause hardship to the parties, and (3) whether the factual record is sufficiently developed to provide fair resolution. State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 20 (10th Dist.), citing Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). "In general, a claim that rests upon future events that may not occur at all, or may not occur as anticipated, is not considered ripe for review."

  5. Lorey v. Lorey

    2016 Ohio 5949 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    {¶ 23} "Courts of common pleas and divisions thereof have original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters." State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.), citing Eagle Fireworks, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 4th Dist. No. 03CA28, 2004-Ohio-509, ¶ 8, citing Article IV, Section 4(B), Ohio Constitution. In order for a cause to be justiciable, it must present a real controversy with issues that are ripe for judicial resolution and will have a direct and immediate impact on the parties. Keller at ¶ 19, citing Eagle at ¶ 8, citing State v. Stambaugh, 34 Ohio St.3d 34, 38 (1987).

  6. Stolzenburg v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Family Servs.

    2015 Ohio 2212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)

    {¶7} "For a cause to be justiciable there must 'exist a real controversy presenting issues which are ripe for judicial resolution and which will have a direct and immediate impact on the parties.'" Langfan v. Carlton Gardens Co., 183 Ohio App.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-3318, ¶ 35 (3d Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 19. "Generally, a claim is not ripe if the claim rests upon 'future events that may not occur as anticipated, or may not occur at all.'"

  7. Pohmer v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

    2015 Ohio 1229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    {¶ 46} An appellate court reviews a trial court's resolution of discovery matters under an abuse of discretion standard. Jacobs v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-930, 2011-Ohio-3313, ¶ 55, citing State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), citing State ex rel. The V. Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469 (1998). An abuse of discretion implies the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.

  8. Paranthaman v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

    2014 Ohio 4948 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)

    {¶ 56} An appellate court reviews a trial court's resolution of discovery matters under an abuse of discretion standard. Jacobs v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-930, 2011-Ohio-3313, ¶ 55, citing State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), citing State ex rel. The V. Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469 (1998). An abuse of discretion implies the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.

  9. Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Brown

    2014 Ohio 3261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 11 times

    Where an action is brought by a plaintiff who lacks standing, the action is not justiciable because it fails to present a case or controversy between the parties before it. See State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 843 N.E.2d 838, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.) (“ ‘For a cause to be justiciable, there must exist a real controversy presenting issues which are ripe for judicial resolution and which will have a direct and immediate impact on the parties.’ ” (Citations omitted.)). But the court's lack of “jurisdiction,” i.e., its ability to properly resolve a particular action due to the lack of a real case or controversy between the parties, does not mean that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

  10. Bennett v. Martin

    2013 Ohio 5445 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    {¶ 36} We review the trial court's resolution of discovery matters under an abuse of discretion standard. State ex rel. Keller v. Columbus, 164 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-6500, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), citing Burke Lakefront Serv. v. Lemieux, 8th Dist. No. 79665, 2002-Ohio-4060 (noting that, absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court must affirm a trial court's disposition of discovery issues). Additionally, an appellate court will not disturb on appeal the trial court's decision whether or not to grant an award of sanctions absent an abuse of discretion.