Legal Opinion

Kleinhenz v. Kleinhenz

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 28, 1936No. 2608PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By BARNES, PJ.

Counsel for defendant in error, in support of motion, cite the following Ohio cases and also §§11230 and 11231 GC:

Zakrzewski v Lehczycki, 50 Oh Ap, 116, (18 Abs 529). The above entitled case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 129 Oh St 462.

McLarren v Myers, Admr., 87 Oh St, 88.

The syllabus in 50 Oh Ap, 116, supra, reads as follows:

“A petition in error will be dismissed where a summons in error is inadvertently not issued until the statutory period has expired, although the petition in error and praecipe for summons was filed within the seventy day limitation.”

The short…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gowdy v. RobertsOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Osmus v. BaumhardtOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  3. Zakrzewski v. LenczyckiOhio Court of Appeals · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mary Grooms v. Greyhound CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
  2. Crabbe v. JonesTuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API