76 OHIOST3D 241 - Shaper v. Tracy

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2016

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Per Curiam.

¶1The legal issues presented in this case are, by Shaper’s own admission, the same legal issues previously litigated by the parties in Shaper’s declaratory judgment action. In Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus, we held that “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” See, also, Superior’s Brand Meats v. Lindley (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 133, 16 O.O.3d 150, 403 N.E.2d 996.

¶2 *243Litigation of the legal issues raised by Shaper’s refund claims is barred by res judicata in the instant case.

¶3The decision of the BTA is affirmed.

¶4Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Sherck, JJ., concur.James R. Sherck, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Stratton, J.