Legal Opinion

Blake v. Blake

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 6, 1935No. 2556PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*4OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.

One question is presented, answer to which is determinative of the error proceedings, namely, did the trial court have jurisdiction to reopen the alimony case and modify the former judgment? Judge Mahaffey, in passing upon the demurrer, rendered an extended opinion, with which we have been favored. We have examined it and are in accord both with the conclusions reached and the reasons therefor.

The cases in Ohio do not establish the rule under which a court may open up alimony judgments with that clarity and precision which is found in some other subjects of the law. It…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Meister v. DayOhio Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Borst v. BorstOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
  2. Beilstein v. BeilsteinOhio Court of Appeals · 1945
  3. Sedam v. SedamOhio Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. Brunswick v. First-Central Trust Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940
  5. Deming v. DemingLucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1939

2 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