State ex rel. Driscoll v. Jeffery

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Driscoll v. Jeffery

158 Ohio St. (N.S.) 43

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 11, 1952·No. No. 32625·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As shown by the pleadings, the General Assembly has provided two alternate methods of procedure in the assignment of cases for trial. The judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County have chosen the method authorized by Section 3007, General Code, thus vesting in an assignment commissioner the duties of assigning all cases for trial and relieving the clerk of court of those duties. This procedure is now being followed.

There being no duty enjoined by law upon the respondent to assign cases for trial under the method now being employed, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

As shown by the pleadings, the General Assembly has provided two alternate methods of procedure in the assignment of cases for trial. The judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County have chosen the method authorized by Section 3007, General Code, thus vesting in an assignment commissioner the duties of assigning all cases for trial and relieving the clerk of court of those duties. This procedure is now being followed.

There being no duty enjoined by law upon the respondent to assign cases for trial under the method now being employed, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is sustained and the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Middleton, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Driscoll v. Jeffery, 158 Ohio St. (N.S.) 43 (Ohio 1952).

Pincite

158 Ohio St. (N.S.) 43 (State ex rel. Driscoll v. Jeffery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.