Ray v. Board of Liquor Control

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ray v. Board of Liquor Control

145 N.E.2d 417, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 156, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 840

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 1952

DocketNo. 4771

StatusPublished

This text of 145 N.E.2d 417 (Ray v. Board of Liquor Control) 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

Ray v. Board of Liquor Control, 145 N.E.2d 417, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 156, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 840 (Ohio Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that the appellants have failed to file their assignments of error and brief in accordance with Rule VII or within the extension of time granted by order of this Court. The appellants admit the facts as stated but urge in their brief they can show good cause for such noncompliance. The grounds set forth are that the failure was due to the press of business and that such failure will cause no delay in the proceedings as the case can be ready for oral argument when the Court convenes for the fall term. This Court has never recognized the excuses offered by the appellants as being good cause for noncompliance with the Rule. See Russell v. State Bridge Commission, 32 Abs 313; Brown v. Brown, 35 Abs 527; Parrett v. Parrett, 42 Abs 413; Golden v. Fogo, 53 Abs 575; Rogers v. Rogers, 55 Abs 221.

The motion will be sustained and the judgment affirmed.

HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and MILLER, 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 of the appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal for the reason that the appellants have failed to file their assignments of error and brief in accordance with Rule VII or within the extension of time granted by order of this Court. The appellants admit the facts as stated but urge in their brief they can show good cause for such noncompliance. The grounds set forth are that the failure was due to the press of business and that such failure will cause no delay in the proceedings as the case can be ready for oral argument when the Court convenes for the fall term. This Court has never recognized the excuses offered by the appellants as being good cause for noncompliance with the Rule. See Russell v. State Bridge Commission, 32 Abs 313; Brown v. Brown, 35 Abs 527; Parrett v. Parrett, 42 Abs 413; Golden v. Fogo, 53 Abs 575; Rogers v. Rogers, 55 Abs 221.

The motion will be sustained and the judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 N.E.2d 417, 76 Ohio Law. Abs. 156, 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-board-of-liquor-control-ohioctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack