Kondrat v. Ralph Ingersoll Publishing Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kondrat v. Ralph Ingersoll Publishing Co.

565 N.E.2d 882, 56 Ohio App. 3d 173, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1240

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 1989

Docket88-L-13-150

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 565 N.E.2d 882 (Kondrat v. Ralph Ingersoll Publishing Co.) 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

Kondrat v. Ralph Ingersoll Publishing Co., 565 N.E.2d 882, 56 Ohio App. 3d 173, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1240 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Christley, P.J.

This is an accelerated calendar case.

Despite appellant’s failure to include in his brief a statement of the assigned errors, as required under App. R. 16(A)(2), a review of his brief shows that: one, appellant does not dispute the merits of the trial court’s decision; and two, appellant contends the Supreme Court erred in not disqualifying the trial judge for alleged prejudice.

The Supreme Court has specifically held that a court of appeals has no authority to determine issues on the disqualification of trial judges. Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 440, 8 O.O. 3d 438, 377 N.E. 2d 775. The Ohio Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction over these issues to the Chief Justice and his designees. It follows from this holding, and from the general principles of appellate review, that a court of appeals cannot reverse a Supreme Court decision on this point.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Mahoney and Ford, JJ., concur.

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