Legal Opinion

Eaton v. Eaton

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 20, 1932No. 65PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE, PJ.

It is contended that Judge John S. Snook should have sustained the motion for a new trial for the reason that he did not have the power to hear and determine the motion for a new trial and that the only thing he had the right to do, was to grant the motion for a new trial as a matter of course. In support of this contention, our attention is invited to the case of Redman v Price Brothers Company, 27 Ohio Nisi Frius Reports (N.S.), 287. The syllabus in this case reads as follows:

“A motion for a new trial which involves á consideration of matters not disclosed by the record, such as…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. HaukOhio Court of Appeals · 1943
  2. Mizerny v. WiluszLucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API