Roberts v. Montgomery

Ohio Supreme Court

Roberts v. Montgomery

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 798, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 927

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1927

DocketNo. 19674

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 798 (Roberts v. Montgomery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberts v. Montgomery, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 798, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 927 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

1. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to remand its judgments and final orders rendered in cases heard on error from the Court of Appeals to that court for execution is by implication conferred by Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio as a necessary concomitant of the jurisdiction to review, affirm,'modify or reverse.

2. When the Supreme Court remands a judgment or final order to the • Court of Appeals for execution, it relinquishes its jurisdiction in that respect to the court of remand, and that court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order against an offending party to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt if the judgment or final oí dor be such that non-compliance therewith amounts to a contempt.

(Day, Allen, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Marshall, CJ., and Kinlcade, J., not participating.)

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

ROBINSON, J.

1. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to remand its judgments and final orders rendered in cases heard on error from the Court of Appeals to that court for execution is by implication conferred by Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio as a necessary concomitant of the jurisdiction to review, affirm,'modify or reverse.

2. When the Supreme Court remands a judgment or final order to the • Court of Appeals for execution, it relinquishes its jurisdiction in that respect to the court of remand, and that court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order against an offending party to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt if the judgment or final oí dor be such that non-compliance therewith amounts to a contempt.

(Day, Allen, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Marshall, CJ., and Kinlcade, J., not participating.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 798, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-montgomery-ohio-1927.