# Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ.

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 12, 1989 · 44 Ohio St. 3d 86

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761868

## Case

- **Full name:** Chef Italiano Corporation v. Kent State University
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 12, 1989
- **Citations:** 44 Ohio St. 3d 86; 541 N.E.2d 64; 1989 Ohio LEXIS 153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Holmes
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Only, Resnick, Sweeney, Syllabus, Wright
- **Cited by:** 674 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Criticized by Beck v. Trane Co., 8 Ohio App. Unrep. 1 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761868

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Civ.R. 54(B) applies when the trial court has issued a “final judgment, pursuant to R.C. 2505.02,” with respect to fewer than all of the claims or parties
- stating that "`[a] judgment that leaves issues unresolved and contemplates that further action must be taken is not a final appealable order'"
- explaining that the “inextricably intertwined” claims analysis to determine whether Rule 54(B) must be followed, only applies “in a case [that] does not involve multiple parties but which does involve a number of claims or counts pled by the parties . . . .”
- noting that even where 54(B) language is included, "the mandates of R.C. 2505.02 must be met" and noting the general effect of inextricably intertwined claims or counts

## Opinion text

Holmes, J.,
dissenting. This matter was presented to this court on the merits, having been submitted for our *92 consideration and determination of a legal issue of first impression. All parties submitted briefs upon the merits and sought a legal pronouncement by this court. No questions were raised by the parties either by way of brief or oral argument as to the appealability of this case. This question of jurisdiction was raised sua sponte by this court.
A more reasonable interpretation of the pertinent Civil Rule here should lead this court to the conclusion that we have a reviewable issue before us, and thus we should proceed with a determination of the merits of the case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761868. Public record. Not legal advice.