Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied because the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants was a final appealable order. Although the trial court did not determine the defendants' counterclaim for attorney fees, its order was final under R.C. 2505.02(B) and contained a certification that there was no just reason for delay, pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B).
Trial courts grant of defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was proper where plaintiffs complaint was completely devoid of any allegation of how the defendants are connected to Ohio. The plaintiff did not establish minimum contacts, by failing to show that (1) the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in Ohio or caused a consequence in Ohio; (2) that the cause of action arose from the defendants activities in Ohio; and (3) that the acts of the defendants or consequences caused by them has a substantial enough connection with Ohio to make the exercise of jurisdiction over them reasonable.
In the Fears v. Commr. case, the IRS determined, in a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment, that the petitioner was liable for Section 6662(a) and (h) penalties. The IRS sent the petitioner a notice of deficiency and assessed the penalties against him. The petitioner filed a petition with the Tax Court and asserted a partner-level defense relating to the penalties. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and contended that the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioner is liable for the penalties. The Tax Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioner is liable for the penalties.
Appellants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 5717.04 because they did not serve their notice of appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals upon the tax commissioner. Appellees motion to dismiss is granted for lack of jurisdiction.
Trial court did not err in granting Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no facts were averred to or pleaded relative to Ohio being the proper forum under the UCCJEA; trial court abused its discretion in denying appellees Civ.R. 60(B) motion where all prongs of the GTE test were met.
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied where court clerk failed to accept for filing a timely notice of appeal from the Environmental Review Appeals Commission ("ERAC"); a time-stamped copy of the notice of appeal filed with ERAC is not required under R.C. 3745.06. ERAC's dismissal for lack of standing under R.C. 3745.07 affirmed.
Trial court did not view evidentiary materials offered in support of and in opposition to motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a light most favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction. Trial court assumed the existence of a contract containing a forum selection clause, but the basis for appellant's claim for a declaratory judgment was that there was no contract.
Civ.R. 12(B)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; "transacting any business" in the forum state; long-arm statute; minimum contacts.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
factory brand shoes | Village of Romeoville, IL | Tom McKenna | HBOS plc | Eurocall Ltd | universidades de mexico | barrios de cordoba | estragos sinonimos | Resina | inversiones eslavas
