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 Supreme Court·Decided April 17, 1968·No. Nos. 41080 and 41081·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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).

236 N.E.2d 530 (Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toot v. Pitello, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2006)
2006 Ohio 4863 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Venable v. Venable
445 N.E.2d 1125 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1981)
Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.
272 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1971)
State ex rel. Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Winter
260 N.E.2d 827 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1970)