Legal Opinion

Johnson v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 29, 1928No. 94PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

The granting or refusing of a motion for continuance rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and a reviewing court will not' interfere with the exercise of this discretion, unless there is an abuse thereof.

Norton v. Norton, 111 Ohio St., 262, 266; 13 C. J., p. 123, Sec. 4; 6 R. C. L., 556, Sec. 14;

Whether or not the facts alleged in the affidavit showed that the attendance of the witnesses could in all probability be secured in the future, and whether or not due diligence was used to procure the attendance of such witnesses, or obtain their testimony, was one for the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Norton v. NortonOhio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. SheppardOhio Court of Appeals · 1955
  2. South Euclid v. FlorianSouth Euclid Municipal Court · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API