Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nau v. Stonebridge Operating Company, LLC

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Noble

November 14, 2019

HERMAN AND BETTY NAU, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
STONEBRIDGE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

         Motion to Certify a Conflict

         JUDGMENT: Overruled.

          Atty. Ethan Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow and Vessels, and Atty. Andrew Lycans, Critchfield, Critchfield, and Johnston, for Plaintiffs-Appellees and

          Atty. Daniel Corcoran, Theisen Brock, for Defendants-Appellants.

          BEFORE: David A. D'Apolito, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

          OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          PER CURIAM

         {¶1} On September 16, 2019, Defendants-Appellants, Stonebridge Operating Company, LLC ("Stonebridge"), Positron Energy Resources, Inc. ("Positron"), SEOR LLC ("SEOR"), and W.H. Haas Family Ltd. ("Haas")(collectively "Appellants"), filed a motion to certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court between our decision and the decision of the Fourth District in Holland v. Gas Enterprises Co., 4th Dist. Washington No. 14CA35, 2015-Ohio-2527. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Herman and Betty Nau, and Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, Siltstone Resources, LLC filed their brief in opposition on September 23, 2019. Appellants filed their reply brief on September 25, 2019.

         {¶2} App.R. 25(A) reads, in pertinent part:

A motion to certify a conflict under Article IV, Section 3(B)(4) of the Ohio Constitution shall be made in writing no later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed to the parties the judgment or order of the court that creates a conflict with a judgment or order of another court of appeals and made note on the docket of the mailing, as required by App. R. 30(A). * * * A motion under this rule shall specify the issue proposed for certification and shall cite the judgment or judgments alleged to be in conflict with the judgment of the court in which the motion is filed.

         {¶3} Article IV, Section 3(B)(4) of the Ohio Constitution reads:

Whenever the judges of a court of appeals find that a judgment upon which they have agreed is in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by any other court of appeals of the state, the judges shall certify the record of the case to the supreme court for review and final determination.

         {¶4} Hence, the following conditions must be met before and during certification pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution:

First, the certifying court must find that its judgment is in conflict with the judgment of a court of appeals of another district and the asserted conflict must be "upon the same question." Second, the alleged conflict must be on a rule of law - not facts. Third, the journal entry or opinion of the certifying court must clearly set forth that rule of law which the certifying court contends is in conflict with the judgment on the same question by other district courts of appeals. (Emphasis deleted.)

State v. Agee, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 0094, 2017-Ohio-7750, ¶ 4, quoting Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.,66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 1032, (1993), paragraph one of the syllabus. In addition, the issue proposed for certification must be dispositive of the case. Agee at ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Davet v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.