Mullett v. DeRubertis

Ohio Court of Appeals

Mullett v. DeRubertis

88 N.E.2d 277, 54 Ohio Law. Abs. 592, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 884

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1949

DocketNo. 4278

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 N.E.2d 277 (Mullett v. DeRubertis) 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

Mullett v. DeRubertis, 88 N.E.2d 277, 54 Ohio Law. Abs. 592, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 884 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion by the defendant-appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that the order appealed from is not a final order. The order under consideration is one striking certain allegations of negligence set forth in the petition. The appellant is opposing the motion, contending that the order deprives him of a substantial right by not permitting him to pursue further certain claims of alleged negligence; that it is an abuse of discretion and prevents a judgment. This is not a final order within the purview of §12223-3 GC. It leaves the action still pending in the trial court. The plaintiff may still succeed in the cause. It may be reviewed only on appeal after a final judgment has been entered. See Holbrook, Admr., v. Connelly, 6 Oh St 200; Betz v Industrial Commission, 139 Oh St 624.

The motion will be sustained.

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

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

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion by the defendant-appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that the order appealed from is not a final order. The order under consideration is one striking certain allegations of negligence set forth in the petition. The appellant is opposing the motion, contending that the order deprives him of a substantial right by not permitting him to pursue further certain claims of alleged negligence; that it is an abuse of discretion and prevents a judgment. This is not a final order within the purview of §12223-3 GC. It leaves the action still pending in the trial court. The plaintiff may still succeed in the cause. It may be reviewed only on appeal after a final judgment has been entered. See Holbrook, Admr., v. Connelly, 6 Oh St 200; Betz v Industrial Commission, 139 Oh St 624.

The motion will be sustained.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.E.2d 277, 54 Ohio Law. Abs. 592, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullett-v-derubertis-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack