Home/Ohio Court of Appeals/Whitlock v. State

Whitlock v. State

21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1147
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 13, 1936
DocketNo 15395
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393 (Whitlock v. State) 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
Whitlock v. State, 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1147 (Ohio Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

[394]*394OPINION

By KLINGER, PJ.

In the opinion of this court the overruling of a plea in abatement is not a final order under this section of the statutes. §13459-1 GC; §11582 GC.

See: 12 Ohio Jurisprudence, 741.

Wagner v State, 42 Oh St, 537.

Inskeep v State, 35 Oh St 482.

Inskeep v State, 36 Oh St 145.

Bogart v State, 9 Abs, 436.

This court, sitting in Wood County, in the case of State v James, held that a motion overruling a plea in abatement was not a final order from which error could be prosecuted and the note in the Bogart case in 9 Abs, refers to this ruling by this court.

The appeal and petition in error will be dismissed at the cost of the appellants.

CROW and GUERNSEY, JJ, concur.

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

Related

City of Akron v. Mingo
155 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1958)
State v. Roberts
153 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1957)
State v. Himlerick
137 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1954)
State v. Theisen
108 N.E.2d 854 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1952)
State v. Norman
77 N.E.2d 76 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Ohio Law. Abs. 393, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitlock-v-state-ohioctapp-1936.