State, ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray, 81-861
| Citation | 431 N.E.2d 324,23 O.O.3d 160,69 Ohio St.2d 112 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-861,81-861 |
| Parties | , 23 O.O.3d 160 The STATE, ex rel. STEVENSON, Appellee, v. MURRAY, Judge, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Silverman, Gorman, Wittenberg & Wittenberg, Charles S. Wittenberg and Nathan L. Silverman, Toledo, for appellee.
Anthony G. Pizza, Pros. Atty., and Mary G. Trimboli, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellant.
Upon remand from an appellate court, the lower court is required to proceed from the point at which the error occurred. Commrs. of Montgomery Co. v. Carey (1853), 1 Ohio St. 463, paragraph one of the syllabus. Thus, in the case at bar, the issue is whether appellee was entitled to a jury trial on August 15, 1979, when the stipulation was contested and a jury trial was first demanded.
Paternity actions are governed by the procedure provided for in the trial of civil actions. State ex rel. Wise v. Chand (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 113, 256 N.E.2d 613, paragraph one of the syllabus; Taylor v. Scott (1959), 168 Ohio St. 391, 155 N.E.2d 884. Thus, the provisions of Civ.R. 38 governing trial by jury in civil actions are applicable to paternity proceedings.
Appellant contends that his decision to deny the request of appellee herein for a jury trial was a matter within his judicial discretion which cannot be controlled by a writ of mandamus. R.C. 2731.03; State ex rel. DeVille Photography, Inc. v. McCarroll (1958), 167 Ohio St. 210, 147 N.E.2d 254, Civ.R. 39(B) provides, in part: " * * * notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues."
Appellee does not assert that timely demand was made under Civ.R. 38(B), and thus, appellant had no clear legal duty to order a jury trial under the Civil Rules.
While the Civil Rules were in effect at the time the paternity action was commenced, appellee alleged that it was the court's policy to order jury trials in all paternity actions, even though no timely jury demand was filed. If the court was operating under such a policy, then appellant may have had a clear duty to grant appellee a jury trial.
No evidence was presented to establish whether such a policy existed and the Court of Appeals did not state its reason for allowing the writ. Since there was no duty upon appellant under the Civil Rules to allow a jury trial and no evidence was presented or findings made as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
...that evidence. On remand, the trial court was required to proceed from the point at which the error occurred. State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 112, 113. In Chinn's case, the error occurred after the sentencing hearing.Moreover, Chinn's contention that he should have b......
-
Davis v. Shoop
...remand the lower court is required to proceed from the point at which the error occurred." Id. at *2, citing State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray, 69 Ohio St. 2d 112, 113 (1982). As the reversible error (improper weighing of evidence) occurred after the submission of evidence, the procedural p......
-
State v. Roberts
...an appellate court, the lower court is required to proceed from the point at which the error occurred." State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray, 69 Ohio St.2d 112, 113, 431 N.E.2d 324 (1982) ; see also State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548, 565, 709 N.E.2d 1166 (1999). We find no indication in R.C. 2......
-
McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
..." State ex rel. Douglas v. Burlew , 106 Ohio St.3d 180, 2005-Ohio-4382, 833 N.E.2d 293, ¶ 11, quoting State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray , 69 Ohio St.2d 112, 113, 431 N.E.2d 324 (1982).{¶134} In this case, error occurred when the trial court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment. Up......