State ex rel. Turrin v. County Court, s. 39817
| Decision Date | 02 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | 39818,Nos. 39817,s. 39817 |
| Citation | 214 N.E.2d 670,5 Ohio St.2d 194 |
| Parties | , 34 O.O.2d 350 The STATE ex rel. TURRIN, Appellant, v. COUNTY COURT of Tuscarawas County, Central District, et al., Appellees. The STATE ex rel. HASSIN, Appellant, v. COUNTY COURT of Tuscarawas County, Central District, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The Common Pleas Court of Tuscarawas County, in accordance with Section 1907.071, Revised Code, established areas of jurisdiction for three individual County Court Areas, namely Northern County Court Area, Central County Court Area, and Southern County Court Area, by naming the specific townships included in each area. The central area comprised, among others, Goshen Township. Thereafter the county commissioners formed a new township, named New Philadelphia, consisting of the city of New Philadelphia, all of which was previously a part of Goshen Township. Thus one township (Goshen) was divided into two townships, the area of the two being identical with that of the original township of Goshen before the division.
Thereafter the relators in these cases were charged in the County Court of Tuscarawas County, Central Area, with violation, in the city of New Philadelphia, of the Sunday Closing Act. The relators instituted the instant actions in prohibition in the Court of Appeals, seeking to prevent the County Court, Central Area, from proceeding further in such criminal cases, and requesting that the cases be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The city of New Philadelphia does not have a Municipal Court.
It is contended in both the instant cases that the County Court, Central Area, is without jurisdiction over New Philadelphia Township because the Common Pleas Court has never specifically named that township in any area of jurisdiction.
In the Hassin case, it is contended also that Section 2938.11(F), Revised Code, requiring that any finding by a judge shall be announced in open court not more than 48 hours after submission of the case to him, was not complied with.
The Court of Appeals denied the writ in each case.
Appeals as of right bring the causes to this court for review.
Patrick, Patrick & Lehigh and Daniel T. Lehigh, New Philadelphia, for appellants.
Harlan R. Spies, Pros. Atty., and Mr. James R. Thomas, New Philadelphia, for appellees.
The dividing by the county commissioners of the area of one township into two townships did not effect a change in the territorial jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pachay
...152 Ohio St. 129, 87 N.E.2d 340; Kyes v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. (1952), 158 Ohio St. 362, 109 N.E.2d 503; State ex rel. Turrin v. County Court (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 194, 214 N.E.2d 670. The right of an accused to a speedy trial is recognized by the Constitutions of both the United States and ......
-
State v. Doughman
...State ex rel. Martin v. Mannen , 113 Ohio St.3d 373, 2007-Ohio-2078, 865 N.E.2d 898, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Turrin v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court , 5 Ohio St.2d 194, 214 N.E.2d 670 (1966). Although "judges should strive to comply with these directory guidelines," R.C. 2938.11(F) does not provi......
-
State v. Fiorenzo
...the above statutory provision is merely directory in nature and not a mandatory rule. State ex rel. Turrin v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 194, 196, 34 O.O.2d 350, 351, 214 N.E.2d 670, 671; Sheffield v. Nieves (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d 187, 188, 6 O.O.3d 173, 174, 368 N.E.2d 1262......
-
State v. Harris
...Nevertheless, R.C. 2938.11(F) is not mandatory in nature, but only directory. Id. , citing State ex rel. Turrin v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court , 5 Ohio St.2d 194, 196, 214 N.E.2d 670 (1966). " R.C. 2938.11(F) which states a court shall announce any verdict in open court does not proscribe mandato......