Beerman v. City of Kettering

235 N.E.2d 231, 13 Ohio St. 2d 149, 42 Ohio Op. 2d 371, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 484
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 20, 1968·No. No. 41032·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court finds itself in the same predicament as did the Court of Appeals. There is no bill of exceptions and no findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court.

In entertaining the appeal we were not fully aware of the situation as it has developed. For the reason stated, we cannot reach the merits of the controversy, and we' are constrained to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmebmah, Matthias, Hebbebt, SchNeid-eb and BbowN, JJ., concur. Tboop, J., dissents. Tboob, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting, for O’Nehx, J.

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

Beerman v. City of Kettering, 235 N.E.2d 231, 13 Ohio St. 2d 149, 42 Ohio Op. 2d 371, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 484 (Ohio 1968).

235 N.E.2d 231 (Beerman v. City of Kettering) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related