Legal Opinion

Januzzi v. Hickman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1991No. 90-1297PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The sole question presented for our review is whether garnishee Ford may appeal from the municipal court’s order to pay into court. We hold that Ford may not appeal, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Prior case law has unequivocally held that a garnishee is not a party to a garnishment proceeding. As stated in the second paragraph of the syllabus in Secor v. Witter (1883), 39 Ohio St. 218, “ * * * a garnishee who is summoned to answer is not a party, nor has he his day in court in that [garnishment] action. His duty is to appear and answer all questions touching the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Marino v. OrtizSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Lipson v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  3. State ex rel. Jones v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State ex rel. London v. Ohio Pardon & Parole CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Peoples Bank & Savings Co. v. KatzOhio Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,102 in Re Battery One-Stop Ltd., Debtor. Battery One-Stop Ltd. v. Atari CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
  2. First Bank of Marietta v. MascreteOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Doss v. ThomasOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. State v. HardingOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. In Re 730 ChickensOhio Court of Appeals · 1991

15 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