Ashcraft v. Lodge
| Decision Date | 25 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 38194,38194 |
| Citation | 193 N.E.2d 85,175 Ohio St. 232 |
| Parties | , 24 O.O.2d 344 ASHCRAFT, Appellant, v. LODGE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
William Flax, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Lindhorst & Dreidame, Cincinnati, for appellees.
The appeal as of right herein is dismissed sua sponte for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved, Ohio App., 192 N.E.2d 789.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
- State ex rel. Shipman v. Young
-
Paulin v. John R. Jurgensen Co.
...Corp. (1948), 149 Ohio St. 72, 77 N.E.2d 600 ; Ashcraft v. Lodge (1963), 118 Ohio App. 506, 192 N.E.2d 789 , appeal dismissed, 175 Ohio St. 232, 193 N.E.2d 85, it is nevertheless clear that it is not appropriate where there exists any genuine issue of material fact manifested by the properl......
-
Reenan v. Klein
...(1922), 105 Ohio St. 396, 137 N.E. 867; Ashcraft v. Lodge (1963), 118 Ohio App. 506, 192 N.E.2d 789 , appeal dismissed (1963), 175 Ohio St. 232, 193 N.E.2d 85 ; Edington v. Glassmeyer (Hamilton App.1960), 168 N.E.2d 425, 11 O.O.2d 439. Whether or not these facts exist is a matter for the tr......
-
John R. Matuszwski v. Hills Department Store, 87-LW-3811
...or by reasonable diligence could have ascertained." Ashcraft v. Lodge (1963), 118 Ohio App. 506, Syl. 1. Appeal dismissed 1963, 175 Ohio St. 232. advice of a prosecuting attorney or other public prosecutor, that the facts upon which the original prosecution was instituted may be an appropri......