Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Fulton v. Halliday
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 23, 1944No. 29501PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The record before this court does not contain proof sufficient to sustain the petition to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The proceedings of a trial court are deemed correct unless error affirmatively appears on the face of the record. Makranczy v. Gelfand, Admr., 109 Ohio St., 325, 142 N. E., 688.
Assuming the second petition to vacate was filed within limitation, all issues presented thereby had been finally determined in the proceeding under the former petition to vacate.
’ There is nothing in the present record to establish that appellant Robert W. Halliday had not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Makranczy v. GelfandOhio Supreme Court · 1924
3Cited by16 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Petro v. GoldOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Abraham v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002
- Roberts v. HuttonOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Pennant Moldings, Inc. v. C & J Trucking Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
- City of Cincinnati v. DuhartOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.