 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanks v. Burt12/21/1994
applicable to this case and hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the appellants' motion for relief. This court previously rendered a final judgment between these parties. Although we subsequently overruled that decision in Browning, the change in the case law reflected in our decision as modified by the Supreme Court does not now provide the appellants with a right to relief under Civ.R. 60(B).
The appellants argue here that Browning did not change the controlling case law; rather, "it set forth the law that has always existed even if it had not been applied." State ex rel. Tavenner v. Indian Lake Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 88, 90, 578 N.E.2d 464, 465, interpreting State ex rel. Brown v. Milton-Union Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 21, 531 N.E.2d 1297. We are not persuaded. In Brown, the Supreme Court held that a "tutor" was a "teacher" within the meaning of R.C. 3319.09(A). Brown, supra, 40 Ohio St.3d at 22, 531 N.E.2d at 1298-1299. The court's holding was not at odds with any former decisions. Tavenner, supra, 62 Ohio St.3d at 90, 578 N.E.2d at 465-466. To the contrary, in Browning, we overruled our prior holding in Hanks. We believe that Browning, as modified and affirmed by the Supreme Court, affected a change in the controlling case law that was the basis for our prior decision in this case. We find the appellants' assignments of error to be without merit.
Therefore, having overruled the appellants' assignments of error, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its disposition of the appellants' motion for relief. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
FAIN and FREDERICK N. YOUNG, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|