Reinbolt v. Reinbolt

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 298

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reinbolt v. Reinbolt. Read the opinion of the Court — 112 Ohio St. 526 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1925·No. No. 18691·Published

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

1. The power of the trial court to make an entry nunc pro tunc after term, does not extend beyond the power to make the journal entry speak the truth.

,2. A trial court is without power to alter his conclusion by nunc pro tunc entry at a term subsequent to the term of the original entry.

Judgment affirmed.

T..^?nes’ Matthias, Day, and Allen, JJ., concur. Kmkade, J., not participating.

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

ROBINSON, J.

1. The power of the trial court to make an entry nunc pro tunc after term, does not extend beyond the power to make the journal entry speak the truth.

,2. A trial court is without power to alter his conclusion by nunc pro tunc entry at a term subsequent to the term of the original entry.

Judgment affirmed.

T..^?nes’ Matthias, Day, and Allen, JJ., concur. Kmkade, J., not participating.

Reinbolt v. Reinbolt, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 298 (Ohio 1925).

Pincite

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 298 (Reinbolt v. Reinbolt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.