Doering v. South Euclid (City)

85 Ohio Law. Abs. 225

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Doering v. South Euclid (City). Read the opinion of the Court — 112 Ohio App. 177 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided September 28, 1960·No. No. 25231·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This motion for new trial is based primarily on the fact that this court in entering judgment for the defendant did not give sufficient consideration to the fact that the retention basin, if built, would, in part, rest on and completely block by the construction of the dam a dedicated public highway.

In examining the record and the opinion, we are now of the view that this contention is correct.

We, therefore, grant the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and return the case to the trial list for further proceedings.

Hurd, P. J., Kovachy and Skeed, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

In examining the record and the opinion, we are now of the view that this contention is correct.

We, therefore, grant the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and return the case to the trial list for further proceedings.

Hurd, P. J., Kovachy and Skeed, JJ., concur.

Doering v. South Euclid (City), 85 Ohio Law. Abs. 225 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

85 Ohio Law. Abs. 225 (Doering v. South Euclid (City)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.