Ohio Supreme Court, 1974

Sexton v. Sugar Creek Packing Co.

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 13, 1974 · Beown, Celebeezze, Cobbigan, Hebbeet, Neill, Steen

37 Ohio St. 2d 58; 307 N.E.2d 541; 66 Ohio Op. 2d 161; 1974 Ohio LEXIS 190

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Burke v. Osborne, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Alliance Group, Inc. v. Rosenfield (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
Miamisburg Motel v. Huntington National Bank (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
Shoup v. Holman (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Delitoy v. I. Stylez Hair & Nails Design, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Gupta v. Edgecombe, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Lewis v. Connors, Unpublished Decision (2-11-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
W.A.F.P., Inc. v. Sky Fuel, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Linquist v. Allstate Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (8-27-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Turnbull v. Arthur, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Windy Hills Hardwoods, Inc. v. Caravona, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Jenkins v. Clark (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

It is defendants’ contention that where, as here, a husband and wife, through the same attorney, file separate actions in two different courts against the same defendants, and the incident giving rise to both actions is identical, the defendants’ appearance in one court constitutes an appearance in the other court.

Such is not the case. An appearance by a defendant in one court does not constitute an “appearance” in another, entirely different, court.

Because defendants did not enter an appearance in the Municipal Court, after having been personally served with summons and a cdpy of the petition, they were not entitled to notice of the default proceedings. Civ. R. 55(A).

Accordingly, the Municipal Court was not in error in refusing to vacate the default judgment more than one year after the judgment was taken. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the overruling of defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Hebbeet, Cobbigan, Steen, Celebeezze, W. Beown and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.