Cobb v. Cobb
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In refusing to review appellants’ assignments of error, the Court of Appeals cited Ray v. Columbus (1956), 76 Ohio Law Abs. 97, 99, for the proposition that “[t]he obligation is upon the appellant to exemplify any error assigned.” While this is true as a general principle, it merely begs the question of whether, in this instance, appellants should suffer because of the apparent nonfeasance of the trial court clerk in failing to transmit pertinent elements of the record.
Resolution of this issue involves interpretation of the Appellate Rules. App. R. 10(A) provides, inter alia, that “***[a]fter…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Columber v. City of KentonOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Holmes v. KreppsOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Ray v. Columbus (City)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1956
3Cited by27 opinions
- DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Reichert v. IngersollOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- American Bronze Corp. v. Streamway ProductsOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Alexander Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Vill. of AlbanyOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
- Hawkins v. Marion Correctional InstituteOhio Supreme Court · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.