State ex rel. Crow v. Baynes

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Crow v. Baynes

173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 18, 1962

DocketNo. 37336

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311 (State ex rel. Crow v. Baynes) 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

State ex rel. Crow v. Baynes, 173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator not having complied with the requirement of Rule VII B of the Courts of Appeals, relative to the time within which to file briefs, the action of the court in passing on the motion to dismiss rested solely within its sound discretion and is not reviewable except on the question of an abuse of discretion.

An examination of the record fails to disclose any unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court in sustaining the motion.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Wbygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taft, Matthias, Doyle and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Bell, J., not participating. Doyle, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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