Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hosp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-567,85-567 |
| Citation | 486 N.E.2d 99,20 Ohio St.3d 77,20 OBR 407 |
| Parties | , 20 O.B.R. 407 JARRETT, Exrx., Appellant, v. DAYTON OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL, INC. et al.; Mucci, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An order vacating a judgment that was entered against less than all the parties and in which the trial court did not make an express determination that there was "no just reason for delay" is not a final, appealable order.
Plaintiff-appellant, Mary A. Jarrett, as executrix for the estate of her husband, William G. Jarrett, filed a wrongful death action against Dayton Osteopathic Hospital, Inc. ("the hospital"), James P. Cleary, D.O., and Thomas Mucci, D.O. On September 20, 1984, the arbitration panel found against all defendants and awarded Jarrett $250,000. To reject the arbitration report and award, defendants Cleary and the hospital filed amended pleadings within the thirty-day period allowed by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Local Rule 2.55(O )(1). On October 23, 1984, one day after the thirty-day period ended, the trial court entered judgment against Mucci for the entire award of $250,000.
On October 24, 1984, Mucci filed his amended answer, rejecting the arbitration report and award. One week later he filed a motion, labeled a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The trial court granted this motion and vacated the judgment on December 12, 1984.
The court of appeals dismissed Jarrett's appeal for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that the trial court's order vacating the judgment was not a final, appealable order. The appellate court reconsidered its decision upon Jarrett's request but determined that the appeal was properly dismissed.
This cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Lang, Horenstein & Dunlevey, Wilbur S. Lang, Carmine Garofalo, Dayton, and Robert M. O'Neal, for appellant.
Wiles, Doucher, Van Buren, Boyle & Casey Co., L.P.A., Daniel G. Wiles and W. Charles Curley, Columbus, for appellee.
The trial court's entry of judgment against Mucci was not a final order. When an order "adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties [it] shall not terminate the action * * * and the order * * * is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties." Civ.R. 54(B). An entry of judgment involving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Page v. Taylor Lumber, Inc.
...the judgment entry is a final appealable order, and we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 77, 20 OBR 407, 486 N.E.2d 99. 2. An "in-running nip point" occurs at the point where the conveyor belt approaches and contacts t......
-
Gilson v. Am. Inst. of Alt. Med.
...judgment.” Matrka v. Stephens, 77 Ohio App.3d 518, 520, 602 N.E.2d 1191 (10th Dist.1991), citing Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 20 Ohio St.3d 77, 78, 486 N.E.2d 99 (1985). {¶ 72} “The denial of a motion for summary judgment * * * generally does not constitute a final order.” Cel......
-
Vanest v. Pillsbury Co.
...a party or his legal representative from a final judgment * * *.") (Emphasis added.); Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 77, 78, 20 OBR 407, 407-408, 486 N.E.2d 99, 100; Keenan v. Huntington Acceptance Co. (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 795, 811, 633 N.E.2d 1164, 1174. ......
-
Groza-Vance v. Vance
...{¶ 52} Only final judgments are subject to vacation or modification pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Jarrett v. Dayton Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 77, 20 OBR 407, 486 N.E.2d 99. Because the trial court's amended decision and judgment entry was not a final judgment, a motion for r......