Legal Opinion

Mark v. Mark

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1945No. 30171PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

To show clearly the application of the controlling principle of law to the facts, 'the statement of facts has been and this opinion will be unavoidably long. It should be borne in mind that this is a statutory divorce and alimony case and not a chancery case. See 14 Ohio Jurisprudence, 380, Section 6; Durham v. Durham, 104 Ohio St., 7, 135 N. E., 280; Marleau v. Marleau, 95 Ohio St., 162, 115 N. E., 1009; DeWitt v. DeWitt, 67 Ohio St., 340, 350, 66 N. E., 136.

The Court of Appeals summarized the assignments of error in that court as:

“1. That the judgment in said cause is contrary to law in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Porter, Exr. v. LerchOhio Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bachtel v. BachtelOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
  2. Glimcher v. GlimcherOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. In Re BakerUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1987
  4. Neville v. SawickiOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Soyk v. SoykOhio Court of Appeals · 1975

8 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