Hagerman v. City of Dayton
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
This case was appealed to the Court of Appeals on questions of law and fact. No motion was filed in that court to challenge the jurisdiction of that court to entertain the cause upon such appeal.
Under the authorities cited in the per curiam opinion inTrumbull Savings Loan Co. v. Saviers, 115 Ohio St. 403,154 N.E. 317, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to proceed.
The Chief Justice, Judge Bell and the writer are of the opinion that as the instant case was not a chancery case and as the parties had no power to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Appeals, that court should have retained and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mills v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- State Ex Rel. Apple v. PenceOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- Trumbull Savings & Loan Co. v. SaviersOhio Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by26 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Karchmar v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. Brotherhood of Railroad TrainmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. VickCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1957
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.