Legal Opinion

In Re Martin, Jr.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1942No. 28749PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBettman, J.

Appellant first claims that the commissioner “had no power and authority to commit Mr. Martin,” seemingly predicating this contention on the absence of a certificate by the surrogate to the order of the New York court appointing the commissioner, authenticating the appointment. This authenticating is claimed to be required by Title 28, Section 687, U. S. Code. Appellant points ont that the order of commitment by the commissioner was dated May 8, 1941, bnt that an exemplified copy of the order appointing the commissioner was not secured until May 29, 1941, and was not received in evidence…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re Martin, Jr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. In Re HydeOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  3. In Re KeoughOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Baker v. ScottOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Ex parte OliverOhio Supreme Court · 1962

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API