Legal Opinion

Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1971No. 69-780PublishedCited by 123 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO ’Neill, C. J.

Appellant sets forth six propositions of law. Three relate to his claim that the trial court, in proceedings in indirect contempt, must follow the procedures outlined in E. C. 2705.03 and that under that section an alleged contemnor is entitled to have the charges against him put in writing and journalized. The other three are that to support a finding of indirect contempt it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an intent to commit the contempt; that the items removed from the premises were personalty; and that the charges for violation of E. C. 2705.02 must be instituted by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Maggio v. ZeitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Penfield Co. v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1947

3Cited by123 opinions

  1. Brown v. Executive 200, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Denovchek v. Board of Trumbull County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. Corn v. RussoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Midland Steel Products Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 486Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati District Council 51Ohio Supreme Court · 1973

118 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API