Stanton v. Levine

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Stanton v. Levine

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 503, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1550

CourtCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1923

DocketNo. 206236

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 503 (Stanton v. Levine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanton v. Levine, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 503, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1550 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

The Prosecutor of Cuyahoga County, Edward Stanton, brought an action to recover money which Judge Levine of Cuyahoga Common Pleas had received from the county as increase in salary. The defendant received this increase from May 20, 1920; to Jan. 1, 1921. The defendant by way of answer set up a former suit brought by him against the County Auditor to compel the Auditor to pay him this money and that at the hearing of said case Judge Critehfield of the Common Pleas held that he was entitled to said increase and awarded him the same. The defendant also set up that no appeal was ever taken from this order and that the same was res adjudicata. A demurrer was filed to this answer. In overruling the demurrer, the Appeals Court held:

1. While the court does not agree with the judgment in the former case, yet as the issues presented there were the same, the judgment there became res adjudicata.

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

THOMAS, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

The Prosecutor of Cuyahoga County, Edward Stanton, brought an action to recover money which Judge Levine of Cuyahoga Common Pleas had received from the county as increase in salary. The defendant received this increase from May 20, 1920; to Jan. 1, 1921. The defendant by way of answer set up a former suit brought by him against the County Auditor to compel the Auditor to pay him this money and that at the hearing of said case Judge Critehfield of the Common Pleas held that he was entitled to said increase and awarded him the same. The defendant also set up that no appeal was ever taken from this order and that the same was res adjudicata. A demurrer was filed to this answer. In overruling the demurrer, the Appeals Court held:

1. While the court does not agree with the judgment in the former case, yet as the issues presented there were the same, the judgment there became res adjudicata.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 503, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanton-v-levine-ohctcomplcuyaho-1923.