Kennedy v. Mancini
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By HORNBECK, J.
Submitted on motion of appellee to dismiss the bill of exceptions and the proceedings, which is an appeal on questions of law.
It is conceded by the parties that the bill of exceptions was filed with the trial court forty-two days after the overruling of the motion for a new trial. It is claimed by counsel for the appellee and by counsel amicus curiae that §11564, GC, is mandatory and controlling and that as the bill was not filed within the time therein prescribed, namely, forty days, it should be stricken from the files.
There is no dispute nor could there be that prior…
2Cited by8 opinions
- McEvoy v. RipleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
- Univis Lens Co. v. United Electrical WorkersOhio Court of Appeals · 1948
- Jarboe v. Workingmen's Overall Supply Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938
- Stevely v. StollOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
- Amicon v. City Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.