Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Henneke v. Davis

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 14, 1993No. 92-974PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant’s motion, by which he seeks to preserve and enforce his claimed rights under the appellate court’s order issued in 1985, is for civil contempt. See State v. Local Union No. 5760 (1961), 172 Ohio St. 75, 82-83, 15 O.O.2d 133, 138, 173 N.E.2d 331, 338; Wellman Eng. Co. v. Calderon Automation, Inc. (1965), 2 Ohio App.2d 385, 31 O.O.2d 591, 209 N.E.2d 172. The purpose of a civil contempt proceeding is remedial in nature, to obtain compliance with a lawful court order for the benefit of the complainant. State v. Local Union No. 5760, supra; Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Denovchek v. Board of Trumbull County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Wellman Engineering Co. v. Calderon Automation, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1965

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re ParkerOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. State ex rel. DeWine v. WalkerOhio Court of Appeals · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API