Turoff v. Stefanac

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. Union Township v. Union Twn. Local 3412

    No. CA99-08-082 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2000)   Cited 4 times

    Before the trial court may order such consolidation or resolve the case on its merits, the trial court must give notice to the parties of its intent to consolidate the matters. Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 228-229. We first note that the record does not contain any indication that either party or the trial court sought to consolidate the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction with a hearing on the merits of the Township's claim.