Cohen v. Karavasales
| Decision Date | 25 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 36288,36288 |
| Citation | 171 Ohio St. 46,167 N.E.2d 768 |
| Parties | , 12 O.O.2d 55 COHEN, Appellee, v. KARAVASALES et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Donald S. McNamara and Keith McNamara, Columbus, for appellants.
Mitchel D. Cohen and Ralph Shapiro, Columbus, for appellee.
An examination of the record discloses that on December 12, 1958, when the plaintiff filed her notice of appeal, the dismissal entry of November 24, 1958, was still in a state of uncertain and indefinite suspension, and there was no final order from which an appeal could be perfected. Hence, the notice of appeal was a nullity and accomplished nothing.
The only final entry in the Court of Common Pleas was that of December 15, 1958 and no notice of appeal from that entry ever was filed although that entry bears the notation that the defendants' attorney previously served plaintiff's attorney with the original of such entry on December 9, 1958, with a request of approval and return; and it bears the further notation that it was not approved, amended or otherwise returned. Hence, the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to review the matter since the only final order in the Court of Common Pleas, namely, that of December 15, 1958, was not before it.
It is not necessary, therefore, to review the question of abuse of discretion by the Court of Common Pleas. The attempted reversal of the judgment of that court by the Court of Appeals must be reversed.
The fatal question of jurisdiction of the subject matter is, of course, one that may be raised initially at any time in any court, as was done during the oral arguments in this case.
Judgment reversed.
WISEMAN, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of MATTHIAS, J., pursuant to Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burkart v. Burkart
...of waiver cannot be invoked even where the jurisdictional issue was not raised in a timely fashion”); Cohen v. Karavasales (1960), 171 Ohio St. 46, 47, 12 O.O.2d 55, 167 N.E.2d 768 (“The fatal question of jurisdiction of the subject matter is, of course, one that may be raised initially at ......
-
Moriarty v. Westgate Center, Inc.
...judgment of affirmance. See also Mantho v. Board of Liquor Control, 1954, 162 Ohio St. 37, 120 N.E.2d 730. But see Cohen v. Karavasales, 1960, 171 Ohio St. 46, 167 N.E.2d 768. The order of the Common Pleas Court does not indicate what, if any, evidence was considered by that court when it r......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Niemiec
...is no inconsistency between this conclusion and the recent holding of this court (in which I did not concur) in Cohen v. Karavasales, 1960, 171 Ohio St. 46, 167 N.E.2d 768. That case held that a notice of appeal from a final order of a Common Pleas Court could not be effective if filed befo......
-
Hirt's Greenhouse, Inc. v. City of Strongsville
... ... 122, 216 N.E.2d 379, paragraph five of the syllabus ... (jurisdictional challenge made for the first time on appeal); ... Cohen v. Karavasales (1960), 171 Ohio St. 46, 167 ... N.E.2d 768 (jurisdictional issue raised during oral argument ... before Ohio Supreme ... ...