Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Chiaramonte

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1978No. 77-428PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

As this court stated in State, ex rel. Buck v. McCabe (1942), 140 Ohio St. 535, at page 537:

“A court has supervisory power and control over its docket. Independent of statute, as an incident to their authority to hear and determine causes, courts have power to grant continuances. Granting or refusing to grcmt a motion for contmuance rests within the sound discretion of the court. * * *
“The basis for a continuance of an action rests upon the right of a party to have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the trial of his cause upon, the merits, but without unnecessary delay. * * *…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Buck v. McCabeOhio Supreme Court · 1942

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pembaur v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Svoboda v. City of BrunswickOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Moore v. Emmanuel Family Training Center, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Heard v. SharpOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. State v. Bean, 22035 (11-16-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API