Legal Opinion

Pilliod v. Searles

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1927No. 19897PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The paramount question presented in this case is, as stated by the brief of plaintiff in error, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in the following respect:

“The court had no power or authority under the statute providing for trial and punishing those found guilty of contempt (Sections 12137-12141 of the General Code) to appoint a commissioner to hear testimony when Section 12141 of the General Code requires the court as a court to hear the testimony and take the evidence and decide upon the weight and credibility of the witnesses.”

It is, of course, conceded that the action of the Court…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. Fawick Airflex Co. v. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers, Local 735Ohio Court of Appeals · 1950
  3. State Ex Rel. Bruns Coal Co. v. ComptonOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
  4. Sawbrook Steel Castings Co. v. United Steelworkers of AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Grand Voiture d'Ohio Societe des 40 et 8 v. Montgomery Cty. Voiture No. 34 la Societe 40 et 8Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024

1 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