Opinion · Ohio Supreme Court

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

88 Ohio St. 3d 52

Type: Opinion
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Date: 2000-02-23
Topic: general

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.

Citator

Cited by: 52 opinions

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 *54 finding 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.