Katsourakis v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Katsourakis v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 183

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 6, 1963

DocketNo. 37576

StatusPublished

This text of 174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 183 (Katsourakis v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.) 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

Katsourakis v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 183 (Ohio 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Three members of the court (Taft, C. J., and Herbert and Gibson, JJ.) are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed on authority of Mantho v. Board of Liquor Control (1954), 162 Ohio St., 37, 120 N. E. (2d), 730. Three members of the court (Zimmerman, Matthias and O’Neill, JJ.) are of the opinion that the Mantho case is not controlling because here the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter and a motion to vacate the judgment for plaintiff was filed within the term at which that judgment was rendered, and it was an abuse of the Common Pleas Court’s discretion to refuse to grant such a motion after the decision of this court in Parker v. Young, Admr., supra (172 Ohio St., 464), had been called to its attention.

The court being equally divided, Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution requires that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Grieeith, J., not participating.

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

Three members of the court (Taft, C. J., and Herbert and Gibson, JJ.) are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed on authority of Mantho v. Board of Liquor Control (1954), 162 Ohio St., 37, 120 N. E. (2d), 730. Three members of the court (Zimmerman, Matthias and O’Neill, JJ.) are of the opinion that the Mantho case is not controlling because here the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter and a motion to vacate the judgment for plaintiff was filed within the term at which that judgment was rendered, and it was an abuse of the Common Pleas Court’s discretion to refuse to grant such a motion after the decision of this court in Parker v. Young, Admr., supra (172 Ohio St., 464), had been called to its attention.

The court being equally divided, Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution requires that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Grieeith, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katsourakis-v-youngstown-sheet-tube-co-ohio-1963.