 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sayre v. Valley Ford Truck Sales8/17/2000
tatute, the parties may not, by stipulation or agreement, confer subject matter jurisdiction where it is otherwise not present.
In accordance with the foregoing, we are compelled to conclude that Sayre's failure to refile his complaint within the savings statute operates as a forfeiture of his right to participate in the workers' compensation system and, as a matter of law, there can be no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Valley Ford should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense because the parties are simply without authority to confer jurisdiction where it is not otherwise present. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Valley Ford's motion for summary judgment.
The second assignment of error is well-taken.
The judgment of the trial court which permitted Sayre to vacate the voluntary dismissal of his complaint is reversed. The judgment of the trial court which denied Valley Ford's motion for summary judgment is also reversed.
This cause is reversed.
It is, therefore, considered that said appellants recover of said appellee the costs herein.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., AND TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR
ANN DYKE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|