A completeness theorem for a nonlinear multiparameter eigenvalue problem

AbstractIn this paper we study the linked nonlinear multiparameter system yrn(Xr) + MrYr + ∑s=1k λs(ars(Xr) + Prs) Yr(Xr) = 0, r = l,…, k, where xr ϵ [ar, br], yr is subject to Sturm-Liouville boundary conditions, and the continuous functions ars satisfy ¦ A ¦ (x) = detars(xr) > 0. Conditions on the polynomial operators Mr, Prs are produced which guarantee a sequence of eigenfunctions for this problem yn(x) = Πr=1k yrn(xr), n ⩾ 1, which form a basis in L2([a, b], ¦ A ¦). Here [a, b] = [a1, b1 × … × [ak, bk]

Being and Nothingness: Commencement and the Application of Ohio Civil Rules 3(A) and 4(E)

As a general rule, a civil action comes into existence at the moment of commencement, and it ceases to exist as an action when the court journalizes a final judgment that adjudicates the rights of all of the parties and determines all of the claims involved in the action. Because the action comes into existence with commencement, it is important to define that precise moment in time when the action is deemed to have commenced. That is the task of Civil Rule 3(A), which states: A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, if service is obtained within one year from such filing. Unfortunately, for reasons that are more historical than rational, this formula links the relatively simple concept of commencement (the filing of the complaint with the court) to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant; this linkage has produced a number of unnecessary complications. These complications will be discussed in some detail in subsequent sections of this Article, but is must be emphasized here that the approach to these problems, and the correct solution to them, cannot be fully understood unless one first grasps the basic concept that a civil action, as such, must have a real, albeit incorporeal, existence. With this in mind, the Article begins by discussing commencement in relation to the statute of limitations in Section II. Section III walks through the elements of necessary for commencement, and Section IV covers the date of commencement. Then Section V lays out the defense of failure of commencement, and Section VI explains the appropriate judgment for when the challenge is successful. Section VII helps illuminate the consequences of a failed commencement, and Section VIII rounds out the discussion with a brief overview of the appellate review options available

The Leave to Plead as a Waiver of the Jurisdictional Defenses

Civil Rule 12(B) includes three defenses which challenge in personam jurisdiction. They are the 12(B)(2) defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, the 12(B)(4) defense of insufficiency of process, and the 12(B)(5) defense of insufficiency of service of process. Not infrequently, the assertion of any one or more of these defenses is haunted by the ghost of the old special appearance, and that which makes the ghost rattle its chains is often the defendant\u27s taking a leave to move or plead before presenting these defenses to the court. In such case it is usually said that the taking of leave is the entry of a general appearance which waives the three jurisdictional defenses. However, for reasons which shall be given in this article, there is no more substance to this argument than there is to any ectoplasmic apparition. Under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, the taking of leave to move or plead is an appearance by the defendant in the action, but in and of itself, it is not an appearance that waives the jurisdictional defenses

The Significance of the Signature: A Comment on the Obligations Imposed by Civil Rule 11

Why does Civil Rule 11 require the signature and signature block? The signature block is intended to provide the information needed for the implementation of Rule 5. That rule requires the service of pleadings, motions or other papers on the attorneys for all parties represented by attorneys, and on the parties personally if they are not so represented. The signature block simply provides information with respect to the place where such service may be made. The signature itself, however, is of greater import, and it is the significance of the signature that we shall discuss in the following page

The Demise of the Declaratory Judgment Action as a Device for Testing the Insurer\u27s Duty to Defend

When a liability insurer defends claims brought against its insured, its interests frequently come in conflict with those of the insured. Over the years, courts and litigants have attempted to alleviate or eliminate this problem by several methods: providing the insured with independent counsel to represent his interests; a declaratory judgment action to test the insurer\u27s duty to defend; direct actions by the injured claimant against the insurance company; and through the imposition on the insurer of an absolute duty to defend with a reserved right to test coverage at a later date. The second of these four methods the declaratory judgment action has been the most frequently used and the most effective from the insurer\u27s point of view. Heretofore, Ohio has recognized the first two methods, and has rejected the third and fourth. But a recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court has reversed this traditional stand, and has adopted the fourth method as the exclusive device for eliminating the conflict of interest in the defense of claims by liability insurers

The Leave to Plead as a Waiver of the Jurisdictional Defenses

Civil Rule 12(B) includes three defenses which challenge in personam jurisdiction. They are the 12(B)(2) defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, the 12(B)(4) defense of insufficiency of process, and the 12(B)(5) defense of insufficiency of service of process. Not infrequently, the assertion of any one or more of these defenses is haunted by the ghost of the old special appearance, and that which makes the ghost rattle its chains is often the defendant\u27s taking a leave to move or plead before presenting these defenses to the court. In such case it is usually said that the taking of leave is the entry of a general appearance which waives the three jurisdictional defenses. However, for reasons which shall be given in this article, there is no more substance to this argument than there is to any ectoplasmic apparition. Under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, the taking of leave to move or plead is an appearance by the defendant in the action, but in and of itself, it is not an appearance that waives the jurisdictional defenses

Contribution among Tortfeasors: A Comment on Amended Ohio House Bill 531

On October 1, 1976, Amended House Bill 531 became effective as sections 2307.31 and 2307.32 of the Ohio Revised Code. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Act is to provide for the contribution among two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort. Like all new legislation, it is bound to have a certain amount of teething problems in its initial use. This Article will discuss some of the anticipated problems, and propose suggested means for resolving them. The heart of the new law is found in section 2307.31(A)3 which indicates that several elements must combine before the right of contribution comes into existence. In the following pages each of these elements will be discussed and the problems arising in connection with each will be explored. Following the discussion of the elements of the right to contribution there will appear a discussion of the various procedural means for enforcing the right to contribution

Local Rules of Court

In the vast majority of cases, the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure will be the primary source of authority governing the practice and procedure to be followed. But in some instances, the primary source of authority will be statutory, and the applicable sections of the Ohio Revised Code may or may not be supplemented by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure

Contribution among Tortfeasors: A Comment on Amended Ohio House Bill 531

On October 1, 1976, Amended House Bill 531 became effective as sections 2307.31 and 2307.32 of the Ohio Revised Code. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Act is to provide for the contribution among two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort. Like all new legislation, it is bound to have a certain amount of teething problems in its initial use. This Article will discuss some of the anticipated problems, and propose suggested means for resolving them. The heart of the new law is found in section 2307.31(A)3 which indicates that several elements must combine before the right of contribution comes into existence. In the following pages each of these elements will be discussed and the problems arising in connection with each will be explored. Following the discussion of the elements of the right to contribution there will appear a discussion of the various procedural means for enforcing the right to contribution

Preserving Objections to In Personam Jurisdiction - Ohio\u27s Persistent Shibboleth

The scenario is commonplace: Plaintiff causes summons to be served on the defendant. The defendant believes the summons is fatally defective, or the service is faulty, or that, for some reason or another, the court in which the action is brought cannot lawfully obtain jurisdiction over his person. Accordingly, he files a motion to quash and set aside the summons, or a motion to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction. As so frequently happens, the court does not quite see the wisdom of defendant\u27s position, and overrules the motion. Usually, the court\u27s journal entry will note that the defendant\u27s objections and exceptions to it\u27s order are noted and saved . Must the defendant now reserve his objection to in personam jurisdiction in all subsequent motions and pleadings filed in the action