State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1503.,98-1503. |
| Citation | 723 NE 2d 571,88 Ohio St.3d 52 |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. BOOHER, APPELLANT, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC. ET AL., APPELLEES. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Sharon E. Deal, for appellant.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee Honda of America Mfg., Inc.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.
Claimant's arguments before us derive directly from the conclusions of law contained in the magistrate's decision. Claimant, however, did not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from "assign[ing] as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule."
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. Bettison
... ... See State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 109-110, 362 ... rel. Huron Cty. Bd. of Edn. v. Howard, 167 Ohio St ... Indianapolis ... & Southeastern Trailways, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton ... No. C-780393, 1979 WL ... R. 53." ... Id., citing State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am ... Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d ... ...
-
Zerbe v. Zerve, 2005 Ohio 1180 (OH 3/18/2005)
...the amount of fees the magistrate's decision had ordered him to pay, as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3). See State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Amer. Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 53-54, 2000-Ohio-269, 723 N.E.2d 571; Ayer v. Ayer (June 30, 2000), 1st Dist. No. {¶10} Under the circumstances, we h......
-
Picciano v. Lowers, 2009 Ohio 3780 (Ohio App. 7/23/2009)
...Highland App. No. 04CA13, 2008-Ohio-3415, at ¶17, quoting Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv); see, also, State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 53-54, 723 N.E.2d 571. {¶17} Here, Lowers failed to object to the magistrate's decision. However, the magistrate's decision did no......
-
Leland Sowders v. Ohio Liquor Control Commission
... ... Reg. No. 0021245, 218 East State Street, ... Columbus, Ohio 43215-4360, ... must have importance and value." Our Place, Inc ... v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1992), ... 53]." Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b); ... State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc ... ...