Cafe Tia Juana, Inc. v. State Department of Liquor Control

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cafe Tia Juana, Inc. v. State Department of Liquor Control

138 N.E.2d 315, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 492, 1956 Ohio App. LEXIS 872

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1956

DocketNo. 5433

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 N.E.2d 315 (Cafe Tia Juana, Inc. v. State Department of Liquor Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cafe Tia Juana, Inc. v. State Department of Liquor Control, 138 N.E.2d 315, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 492, 1956 Ohio App. LEXIS 872 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that no bill of exceptions has been signed, allowed and filed in accordance with §2321.06 et seq, R. C. The record discloses that the decision of the trial court is entered on the record which exemplifies some of the errors set forth in the appellant’s assignment of errors. Under §2321.05 R. C., a bill of exceptions is not required under such circumstances. See In re Estate of Anderson, 71 Abs 126; Hoffman Candy Co. v. Dept of Liquor Control, 56 Abs 257; Harlem v. Board of Liquor Control, 62 Abs 355.

The motion is overruled. The appellant’s motion for leave to present oral argument is also overruled.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK, J, concur. WISEMAN, J, not participating.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that no bill of exceptions has been signed, allowed and filed in accordance with §2321.06 et seq, R. C. The record discloses that the decision of the trial court is entered on the record which exemplifies some of the errors set forth in the appellant’s assignment of errors. Under §2321.05 R. C., a bill of exceptions is not required under such circumstances. See In re Estate of Anderson, 71 Abs 126; Hoffman Candy Co. v. Dept of Liquor Control, 56 Abs 257; Harlem v. Board of Liquor Control, 62 Abs 355.

The motion is overruled. The appellant’s motion for leave to present oral argument is also overruled.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK, J, concur. WISEMAN, J, not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 315, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 492, 1956 Ohio App. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cafe-tia-juana-inc-v-state-department-of-liquor-control-ohioctapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack