# Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney

> Ohio Court of Appeals · January 11, 1995 · 100 Ohio App. 3d 661

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3701101

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTHERN OHIO COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. KIDNEY Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 11, 1995
- **Citations:** 100 Ohio App. 3d 661; 654 N.E.2d 1017; 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 177
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harsha
- **Judges:** Grey, Harsha, Abele
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3701101

## Opinion text

Harsha, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
Generally, a consent judgment may not be directly or collaterally attacked in the absence of allegations of irregularity or fraud in the procurement of the judgment.
Sponseller v. Sponseller
(1924), 110 Ohio St. 395, 399 , 144 N.E. 48, 49 ;
Mack v. Mack
(Sept. 28,1987), Richland App. No. CA-2479, unreported, 1987 WL 18620 ;
Schenk v. Mohre
(Oct. 28, 1983), Wood App. No. WD-83-33, unreported, 1983 WL 6982 . However, public policy requires a limited exception to this judicially imposed general rule where the ultimate issue involves a governmental agency which is called upon to administer a statutory duty dealing with health and safety issues affecting a significant number of people. When a public agency enters into an agreement based upon the mistaken belief that the beneficiaries of the safety regulation are in agreement with the proposed settlement, it is not an
*677
abuse of discretion to grant a timely Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Because these conditions exist here, I concur in judgment.
Peter B. Abele, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3701101. Public record. Not legal advice.