Staley v. Kreinbihl

Ohio Court of Appeals

Staley v. Kreinbihl

89 N.E.2d 593, 85 Ohio App. 510, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 250, 40 Ohio Op. 414, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 733

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 1949

Docket376

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 N.E.2d 593 (Staley v. Kreinbihl) 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

Staley v. Kreinbihl, 89 N.E.2d 593, 85 Ohio App. 510, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 250, 40 Ohio Op. 414, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 733 (Ohio Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By FESS, J.

On November 6, 1948, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from this court to the Supreme Court of Ohio from a judgment entered in this court after a trial de novo herein. On the same day, but after the filing of plaintiff’s notice of appeal, the defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal in this court to the Supreme Court. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the notice of cross-appeal from the files for the reason that no statute *251 or rule of this court provides for the filing and perfecting of cross-appeals from this court to the Supreme Court. However, the right of appeal can be determined only by the court or tribunal to which the appeal is sought to be taken. State ex rel. Cleveland, A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Glasgo, Aud., 105 Oh St, 225, 137 N. E., 35. The motion to strike is therefore overruled without prejudice to the plaintiff to raise the question in the Supreme Court.

Motion overruled.

CONN, PJ, and CARPENTER, J, concur.

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

OPINION

By FESS, J.

On November 6, 1948, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from this court to the Supreme Court of Ohio from a judgment entered in this court after a trial de novo herein. On the same day, but after the filing of plaintiff’s notice of appeal, the defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal in this court to the Supreme Court. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the notice of cross-appeal from the files for the reason that no statute *251 or rule of this court provides for the filing and perfecting of cross-appeals from this court to the Supreme Court. However, the right of appeal can be determined only by the court or tribunal to which the appeal is sought to be taken. State ex rel. Cleveland, A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Glasgo, Aud., 105 Oh St, 225, 137 N. E., 35. The motion to strike is therefore overruled without prejudice to the plaintiff to raise the question in the Supreme Court.

Motion overruled.

CONN, PJ, and CARPENTER, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 N.E.2d 593, 85 Ohio App. 510, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 250, 40 Ohio Op. 414, 1949 Ohio App. LEXIS 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-kreinbihl-ohioctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack