Legal Opinion

Borst v. Borst

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 1933No. 2289PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnes, J.

To this order, judgment and finding defendant prosecutes error, setting up the following grounds:(1) The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.(2) The court erred in overruling the motion of the plaintiff in error to dismiss said contempt proceedings.(3) The court erred in overruling the motion of the plaintiff in error to modify the judgment of the court rendered at the former hearing and to make said judgment of the court comply with the proceedings and facts then before the court.(4) The court erred in admitting evidence over the objection of plaintiff in error and to which he…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Downing v. DowningOhio Court of Appeals · 1923

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Blake v. BlakeOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
  2. Kontner v. KontnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1956
  3. Potter v. PotterOhio Court of Appeals · 1946
  4. McLaughlin v. McLaughlinOhio Court of Appeals · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API