Legal Opinion

Brown v. Lamb

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1973No. 73-158PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

This case is before us pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record, and represents an action filed for the recovery of attorney fees. It has had a long and unusual history in the courts. We allowed the motion to certify because, in spite of the age of the litigation, it concerns the erroneous denial of a day in court for the appellant.

The journal entry in the Court of Appeals sets out the following pertinent facts:

“On March 24, 1969, the case was, after publication in the Toledo Legal News, dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiff’s counsel was actually aware of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. LaBarbera v. BatschOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Smith v. JaggersOhio Supreme Court · 1973

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge George N. KiroffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
  2. Rahm v. HemsothOhio Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. KiroffDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1975
  4. Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge George N. KiroffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API