McKee v. Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

McKee v. Clark

90 N.E.2d 584, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 496, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 839

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 1949

DocketNo. 4349

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 N.E.2d 584 (McKee v. Clark) 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

McKee v. Clark, 90 N.E.2d 584, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 496, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion by the plaintiff-appellee to strike the notice of appeal from the files, the same being noted as on law only and that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, entered on June 23, 1949, be affirmed. The record discloses that the notice of appeal was filed on July'25, 1949, which is more than 20 days from the date of the judgment entry. The case originated in the Municipal Court and was in the Common Pleas Court on appeal. There is no provision in the General Code for the filing of a motion for a new trial in a reviewing court and therefore the date of the overruling of the appellant’s motion for a new trial is of no significance.» [497]*497See Kromer v. Kear, No. 4318, decided by this Court on August 8, 1949. (55 Abs 385.)

The motion to strike is sustained.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

McKEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WADE, Defendant-Appellant.

Ohio Appeals, Second District, Franklin County.

ON MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL

No. 4350. Decided September 6, 1949.

Submitted on motion by the plaintiff-appellee to strike the notice of appeal from the files, the same being noted as on law only and that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, entered on June 23, 1949, be affirmed. The record discloses that the notice of appeal was filed on July 25, 1949, which is more than 20 days from the date of the judgment entry. The case originated in the Municipal Court and was in the Common Pleas Court on appeal. There is no provision in the General Code for the filing of a motion for a new trial in a reviewing court and therefore the date of the overruling of the appellant’s motion for a new trial is of no significance. See Kromer v. Kear, No. 4318, decided by this Court on August 8, 1949. (55 Abs 385.)

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion by the plaintiff-appellee to strike the notice of appeal from the files, the same being noted as on law only and that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, entered on June 23, 1949, be affirmed. The record discloses that the notice of appeal was filed on July'25, 1949, which is more than 20 days from the date of the judgment entry. The case originated in the Municipal Court and was in the Common Pleas Court on appeal. There is no provision in the General Code for the filing of a motion for a new trial in a reviewing court and therefore the date of the overruling of the appellant’s motion for a new trial is of no significance.» [497]*497See Kromer v. Kear, No. 4318, decided by this Court on August 8, 1949. (55 Abs 385.)

The motion to strike is sustained.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

McKEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WADE, Defendant-Appellant.

Ohio Appeals, Second District, Franklin County.

ON MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL

No. 4350. Decided September 6, 1949.

Submitted on motion by the plaintiff-appellee to strike the notice of appeal from the files, the same being noted as on law only and that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, entered on June 23, 1949, be affirmed. The record discloses that the notice of appeal was filed on July 25, 1949, which is more than 20 days from the date of the judgment entry. The case originated in the Municipal Court and was in the Common Pleas Court on appeal. There is no provision in the General Code for the filing of a motion for a new trial in a reviewing court and therefore the date of the overruling of the appellant’s motion for a new trial is of no significance. See Kromer v. Kear, No. 4318, decided by this Court on August 8, 1949. (55 Abs 385.)

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.E.2d 584, 55 Ohio Law. Abs. 496, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckee-v-clark-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack