Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.

236 N.E.2d 530, 14 Ohio St. 2d 41, 43 Ohio Op. 2d 111, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 415

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1968

DocketNos. 41080 and 41081

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 N.E.2d 530 (Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp 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

Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 236 N.E.2d 530, 14 Ohio St. 2d 41, 43 Ohio Op. 2d 111, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 415 (Ohio 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not reach the merits of these canses because we find that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the order of the trial court. An order overruling a motion to quash is not a final appeal-able order. State, ex rel. Gregory, v. Masheter, 3 Ohio St. 2d 43, Tonio v. Lett & Co. of Indiana, Inc., 65 Ohio App. 304; Section 6, Article IV, Ohio Constitution.

The defendants argue that the order of the trial court is appealable, even if it is interlocutory, because it is the result of an abuse of discretion, but the legal basis of this argument was found to be unsound in Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Co., 13 Ohio St. 2d 85. An abuse of discretion does not, of itself, render final and appealable an otherwise interlocutory order.

Judgments reversed.

Taft, C. J., ZimmermaN, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, SohNEider and BrowN, JJ., concur.

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