Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Roulhac v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1970No. 69-697PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Relator contends that the action to determine heirship is res judicata and that the Probate Court has no jurisdiction to further consider the case or to rule on the motion to vacate and the motion for a new trial. The basis of relator’s contention is that an appeal was filed and that the defendant-appellant should have prosecuted all her alleged errors in that appeal, including those *107raised in the motion to vacate and in the motion for a new trial.

The questions raised by the relator’s contentions are beyond the scope of the case at bar. The Probate Court has general jurisdiction of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Price v. McCoy Sales & Service, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
  2. State ex rel. Stefanick v. Municipal Court of MariettaOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. State Ex Rel. Levy v. SavordOhio Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Adams v. GusweilerOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Effingham v. Xp3 Corp., 2006-P-0083 (12-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. State ex rel. Casey v. Sixth District Appellate CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API