Turoff v. Stefanac

16 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. Iofredo

    127 Ohio App. 3d 367 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Furthermore, this court has held that when a case is being heard on a motion for a temporary restraining order, a trial court may not consolidate that motion with a trial on the merits and enter judgment without clear and unambiguous notice of its intent to do so. Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 229, 16 OBR 243, 245, 475 N.E.2d 189, 191. In Turoff the court stated that where both parties are present at the hearing for a temporary restraining order, rather than it being an ex parte proceeding, the trial court may treat the motion as one for a preliminary injunction.

  2. West v. City of Cincinnati

    2024 Ohio 1951 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    Several Ohio courts have found error in such a consolidation absent a formal consolidation order prior to the hearing or some other form of notice that the trial court intends to proceed to the merits at the hearing. See id. at ¶ 10, citing Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 475 N.E.2d 189 (8th Dist.1984); Gionino's Pizzeria Inc. v. Reynolds, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 20 CA 0940, 2021-Ohio-1289, ¶ 44. This aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the near-identical federal rule and its relationship to due process.

  3. Ray v. The Lake Royale Landowners Ass'n

    2024 Ohio 220 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    "Where a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction is to be consolidated with a trial on the merits, Civ.R. 65(B)(2) requires the court to issue a 'consolidation' order before the hearing, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits." Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 475 N.E.2d 189 (8th Dist. 1984), paragraph two of the syllabus.

  4. Rock House Fitness Inc. v. Himes

    2021 Ohio 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    "Where a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction is to be consolidated with a trial on the merits, Civ.R. 65(B)(2) requires the court to issue a 'consolidation' order before the hearing, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits." Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227 (8th Dist.1984), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶29} For example, in Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Columbus, ,2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215 (10th Dist.), the Tenth District held that the city was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to give clear and unambiguous notice that it intended to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits, where gun rights activists did not disclose their expert's opinions before hearing; the city was unable to effectively cross-examine the activists' expert; the city made the strategic decision based on procedural status of the matter to not present expert or factual evidence; and the trial court relied on the activists' expert testimony in its resolution of the issues.

  5. Chandlers Lane Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Gillespie

    2017 Ohio 2862 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR See also Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 229, 475 N.E.2d 189 (8th Dist.1984).

  6. Cairelli v. Brunner

    2016 Ohio 5535 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    However, "it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered." Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay (Feb. 23, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP1056, citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 71; Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227. "Before consolidation, the parties should normally receive clear and unambiguous notice of the court's intent to consolidate the trial and the hearing either before the hearing commences or at a time which will still afford the parties a full opportunity to present their respective cases." Bd. of Edn. Ironton City Schools v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. (June 29, 1993), Lawrence App. No. CA92-39, citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch (1981), 45 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830; Warren Plaza v. Giant Eagle, Inc. (June 15, 1990), Trumbull App. No. 88-T-4122, jurisdictional motion allowed, 55 Ohio St.3d 705, appeal dismissed (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 497

  7. Committee v. Switzerland of Ohio Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

    2016 Ohio 4663 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    {¶ 23} Civ.R. 65(B)(2) states that a court may consolidate a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits with knowledge of the parties that the case is being heard on the merits. Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 228, 475 N.E.2d 189 (1984). In the instant case, the Board was present and participated in the hearing with a number of witnesses.

  8. Vill. of Ottawa Hills v. Boice

    2014 Ohio 1992 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)

    This subdivision (B)(2) shall be so construed and applied as to save to the parties any rights they may have to trial by jury. {¶ 13} As this court recognized in Lend-A-Paw Feline Shelter, Inc. v. Lend-A-Paw Found. of Greater Toledo, Inc., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-01-1052, 2001 WL 1388029 (Nov. 9, 2001), citing Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 228, 475 N.E.2d 189 (1984), "the general rule is that a court must 'order the consolidation of a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits.'" That notice provides the parties a "'full opportunity to present their respective cases.'"

  9. Mingo Junction Safety Forces Assoc. v. Chappano

    2011 Ohio 3401 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    The trial court handled the TRO and preliminary injunction request together, which is proper where, as here, both parties had notice of, were present at, and participated in the hearing. See Turoff v. Stefanec (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 228, 475 N.E.2d 189. The trial court then granted the TRO/preliminary injunction and instructed the parties to brief the issue of whether a permanent mandatory injunction should issue, which both sides then did.

  10. Sunshine Diversified Investments v. Chuck

    2009 Ohio 4226 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    {¶ 22} "`[I]t is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered.' Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay (Feb. 23, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1056, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 1182, citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 71, 5 Ohio B. 182, 449 N.E.2d 503; Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 16 Ohio B. 243, 475 N.E.2d 189. `Before consolidation, the parties should normally receive clear and unambiguous notice of the court's intent to consolidate the trial and the hearing either before the hearing commences or at a time which will still afford the parties a full opportunity to present their respective cases.' Bd. of Edn. Ironton City Schools v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. (Jun. 29, 1993), Lawrence App. No. CA92-39, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3476, citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch (1981), 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175; Warren Plaza v. Giant Eagle, Inc. (June 15, 1990), Trumbull App. No. 88-T-4122, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2381, jurisdictional motion allowed, 55 Ohio St.3d 705, 562 N.E.2d 898, appeal dismissed (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 497, 589 N.E.2d 23.