State v. Glaros
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
It is a general rule that an appellate court will not consider any error which counsel for a party complaining of the trial court’s judgment could have called but did not call to the trial court’s attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court. 3 American Jurisprudence, 25 et seq., Section 246. That rule has frequently been applied by this court. Adams v. State, 25 Ohio St., 584, State v. McCoy, 88 Ohio St., 447, 103 N. E., 136, State v. Driscoll, 106 Ohio St., 33, 138 N. E., 376, Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St., 481, 159 N. E., 594, Rucker v. State,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- State v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
- Tari v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Maggio v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- Erwin v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- State v. DriscollOhio Supreme Court · 1922
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.