Baer v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Baer v. State

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 500

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1924

DocketNo. 18483

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 500 (Baer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baer v. State, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 500 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

This case came before the Supreme Court upon a motion to Certify the record. An action was commenced in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by the Prosecuting Attorney to recover certain payments of salary from Judge Baer. These payments had been made on account of increase in' salary provided by the Amendment to 2251 and 2252 GC., which was passed Feb. 24, 192;0, and became effective May 25, 1920. After Baer had drawn this increase for some time this action was commenced.

The Common Pleas held that Baer was entitled to the increase because Art. IV, Sec. 14, Ohio Constitution, did not make the Act of Feb. 24, 7920, inapplicable to judges whose terms began before it became effective. The Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that applied only to newly elected judges. It was to reverse this judgment that this motion was filed in the Supreme Court. The sole question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the section of the Constitution made the Act. of Feb. 24, 1920, inapplicable to judges holding office and serving as such when the act went into effect.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This case came before the Supreme Court upon a motion to Certify the record. An action was commenced in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by the Prosecuting Attorney to recover certain payments of salary from Judge Baer. These payments had been made on account of increase in' salary provided by the Amendment to 2251 and 2252 GC., which was passed Feb. 24, 192;0, and became effective May 25, 1920. After Baer had drawn this increase for some time this action was commenced.

The Common Pleas held that Baer was entitled to the increase because Art. IV, Sec. 14, Ohio Constitution, did not make the Act of Feb. 24, 7920, inapplicable to judges whose terms began before it became effective. The Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that applied only to newly elected judges. It was to reverse this judgment that this motion was filed in the Supreme Court. The sole question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the section of the Constitution made the Act. of Feb. 24, 1920, inapplicable to judges holding office and serving as such when the act went into effect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baer-v-state-ohio-1924.