Legal Opinion

In re Adoption of Schoeppner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1976No. 75-748PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

’ Pawl W. Brown, J.

Initially,1 we must determine the sufficiency, pursuant to Civ. R. 52, of the “Ruling” filed prior to the entry of judgment by the trial court.

Civ. R. 52, captioned “Findings by the court,” provides, as pertinent: ■:

“An opinion or memorandum-of decision filed in the action prior to judgment' entry and containing findings of *23fact and conclusions of law stated separately shall be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this rule* * *.”

The “Ruling” in question is not entitled “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” and does not contain separate statements of fact and law.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hennepin County Welfare Department v. StaatSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  2. State v. GradyOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Hutson v. HaggardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
  4. Jordan v. HancockCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1974
  5. Walls v. CombsOhio Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. In re Adoption of HolcombOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Stone v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. In re Adoption of MasaOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. In re Adoption of GreerOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. In re the Adoption K.M.M.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980

29 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