State, Ex Rel. Card. Fuel Co. v. Haines

Ohio Court of Appeals

State, Ex Rel. Card. Fuel Co. v. Haines

180 N.E.2d 22, 114 Ohio App. 50

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 1961

DocketNo. 6739

StatusPublished

This text of 180 N.E.2d 22 (State, Ex Rel. Card. Fuel Co. v. Haines) 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

State, Ex Rel. Card. Fuel Co. v. Haines, 180 N.E.2d 22, 114 Ohio App. 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action in mandamus filed originally in this court, and to the petition of the relator the respondents have filed an answer and a cross-petition. The relator now moves this court to dismiss the cross-petition for the reason that the court is without jurisdiction to consider the matter set forth in the cross-petition.

Appellate courts have original jurisdiction in mandamus. However, this court does not have original jurisdiction to consider an action for statutory damages, as alleged in the cross-petition. It should be noted further that the law does not provide appellate courts with the machinery for conducting a trial necessary to determine the issues raised by the cross-petition.

The motion to dismiss the cross-petition will be sustained, and if the respondents desire an opportunity to submit an amended answer, leave will be granted them.

Motion sustained.

DUFFEY, P. J., DUFFY and BRYANT, JJ., concur. *Page 51

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

This is an action in mandamus filed originally in this court, and to the petition of the relator the respondents have filed an answer and a cross-petition. The relator now moves this court to dismiss the cross-petition for the reason that the court is without jurisdiction to consider the matter set forth in the cross-petition.

Appellate courts have original jurisdiction in mandamus. However, this court does not have original jurisdiction to consider an action for statutory damages, as alleged in the cross-petition. It should be noted further that the law does not provide appellate courts with the machinery for conducting a trial necessary to determine the issues raised by the cross-petition.

The motion to dismiss the cross-petition will be sustained, and if the respondents desire an opportunity to submit an amended answer, leave will be granted them.

Motion sustained.

DUFFEY, P. J., DUFFY and BRYANT, JJ., concur. *Page 51

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 N.E.2d 22, 114 Ohio App. 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-card-fuel-co-v-haines-ohioctapp-1961.