Ohio Supreme Court, 2000

State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 23, 2000 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

88 Ohio St. 3d 52; 723 N.E.2d 571

Cases that cite this one

89 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

O'Brien v. O'Brien (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Curry v. Bettison (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
In re Pettiford, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Target Auto Repair v. Morales (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2022)
Dinardo v. Dinardo (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State v. Wheeler (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Perry v. Davis (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Watson v. Chapman-Bowen (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Sadlowski v. Boardman Local Schools (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ryan (Ohio 2010)
State Ex Rel. Findlay Industries v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2009)
Mahoning Natl. Bank v. Wilhelm, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Alessio v. Alessio, Unpublished Decision (5-16-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
In re Thut, Unpublished Decision (8-6-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Harrison v. Faseyitan (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Kaufman v. Byers (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Kme Consulting, LLC v. Yager, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Spain v. Hubbard, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Clemons v. Clemons, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Gordon v. Gordon (Ohio 2003)
State ex rel. Wilson v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2003)
Ravenna Police Dept. v. Sicuro, Unpublished Decision (4-30-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Utt v. City of Cincinnati Civil Service, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Abate v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2002)
Weinberger v. Weinberger, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)

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.

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 “assigning] as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any *54finding 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.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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