History
  • No items yet
midpage
Shaper v. Tracy
76 Ohio St. 3d 241
| Ohio | 1996
|
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The 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.

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

The decision of the BTA is affirmed.

Decision 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.

Case Details

Case Name: Shaper v. Tracy
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 7, 1996
Citation: 76 Ohio St. 3d 241
Docket Number: No. 95-389
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.