Legal Opinion

Worth v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 26, 1931PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlosser, J.

The state of Ohio brought an action against S. C. Worth on a recognizance for the sum of $5,000, claiming that the defendant S. C. Worth, together with one Jack Alberts, entered into the recognizance, which was conditioned that if the said Jack Alberts should be and appear before the court of common pleas- of Cuyahoga county on the first day of the next term, and so from day to day, to answer to a charge of housebreaking and larceny, and abide the order of the court in the premises, and not depart without leave until the cause is finally disposed of, then the obligation shall be void,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  2. State v. Schenck.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. United States v. StevensUnited States Circuit Court · 1883
  4. Milan ex rel. Crockett v. PembertonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1849
  5. Perkins v. TerrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. PattonOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Haggerty v. IannacciMassachusetts Superior Court · 1999
  3. Stuber v. Stuber, Unpublished Decision (4-9-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. Worth v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API