Case Citator › Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.

Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
6 Ohio St. 3d 31
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
1996–2000
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd. was superseded by statute for claims governed by Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. All 36 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The 1985 Act restored general immunity for political subdivisions and replaced Enghauser's common-law test with statutory rules and exceptions. Enghauser remains relevant to claims arising before the Act took effect and to the development of Ohio immunity law. The confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

36 later cases cite Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.; 36 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The Ohio appellate court held that the 1985 Act generally restored political-subdivision immunity after Enghauser's common-law abolition of municipal immunity.

    Feitshans v. Darke County · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District · filed

    The following year, the court, while reaffirming Haverlack’s rejection of municipal immunity generally, held that municipal immunity was not abrogated as to acts or omissions that go to the essence of governing or that are the subject of statutory immunity. Enghauser Mfg. Co. v. Eriksson Eng. Ltd. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 31, 35, 6 OBR 53, 56, 451 N.E.2d 228, 232. The Act generally restores immunity for all political subdivisions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ohio appellate court held that the Act replaced Enghauser's test for political-subdivision immunity with statutory definitions, while leaving the older distinction useful in some statutory applications.

    Day v. Middletown-Monroe City School District · Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth District · filed

    Although the enactment of R.C. Chapter 2744 abrogated theEnghauser test in favor of statutory definitions of governmental and proprietary functions, the former distinction is still be useful under certain circumstances when determining whether certain sections of R.C. Chapter 2744 are applicable.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Enghauser Manufacturing Co. v. Eriksson Engineering Ltd. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace