49 Ohio App. 2d 87 - Rosenberg v. Gattarello’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(B) Assignment system. In all multi-judge courts, cases shall be assigned to an individual judge or to a particular session of court pursuant to the following system: “(1) Particular session. A particular session of court is one in which cases are assigned by subject category rather than by the individual assignment system. The following subject categories must be disposed of by particular session: “(a) Civil cases in which a motion for default judgment is made; “(b) Criminal cases in which a plea of guilty or no contest is entered; “(c) Initial appearance in criminal cases; “(d) Preliminary hearings in criminal cases; “(e) Criminal cases in which an immediate trial is conducted upon initial appearance; “(f) Small claims cases; “(g) Forcible entry and detainer cases in which the right to trial by jury is waived or not demanded. “(2) Individual assignment. Cases not subject to assignment in a particular session shall be assigned by lot to a judge who shall be responsible for the determination of every issue and proceeding in the case until its termination. When a case is assigned to an individual judge, all matters, including requests for continuances, shall be submitted to that judge, or, if he is unavailable, to the administrative judge. “Civil cases shall be assigned under this subsection when an answer is filed or when a motion, other than one for default judgment, is filed. Criminal cases shall be assigned under this subsection when a plea of not guilty is entered.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 Ohio App. 2d 30 - Mancino v. Friedman · 15 Ohio App. 3d 45 - Brown v. Brown

2. ““The administrative judge merely has authority and responsibility for and con trol over the administration, docket and calendar of the division. He does not have authority and responsibility for determining issues and proceedings in cases. These must be submitted for disposition to the judge to whom the case has been assigned with the exception of preliminary matters where the trial judge is unavailable and a delay in ruling on the matters until he is available would be prejudicial. “The movant before the administrative judge has an affirmative duty to demonstrate in the record that the assigned judge is not available to rule on said matter and that a delay in ruling until he his [sic] available would be prejudicial. This condition precedent must be complied with before the administrative judge has authority to rule on any preliminary matter. Until a showing of unavailability is made, the assigned judge has the exclusive authority to rule on preliminary matters. “The record in this case does not demonstrate that the assigned judge was unavailable to rule on the motion for leave to file a counterclaim, nor does it show that a delay in ruling until the trial judge was available would have been prejudicial. Consequently, since the administrative judge did not have authority to grant the motion, the order granting said motion was null and void. * * *” (Footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Ohio App. 3d 125 - Berger v. Berger

3. ““We now turn to the first issue of whether or not the administrative judge of a division of a common pleas court has authority to rule on preliminary matters in a case assigned to a trial judge under the personal docket system. The appellant argues that through custom and usage the administrative judge here had concurrent authority with the assigned judge to grant his motion for leave to file an untimely counterclaim. This argument is not valid. Ohio courts are governed not by custom and usage but by the Rules of Superintendence of the Ohio Supreme Court promulgated under authority of the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5. Under the facts in this case, we hold that the administrative judge did not have authority to rule on the motion for leave under Civil Rule 13(F).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Ohio App. 3d 125 - Berger v. Berger