State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel
Decision Date | 11 March 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-587,80-587 |
Citation | 417 N.E.2d 1249,65 Ohio St.2d 10,19 O.O.3d 191 |
Parties | , 19 O.O.3d 191 The STATE ex rel. VENTRONE et al., Appellants, v. BIRKEL et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Margaret F. Corneille and Anthony J. Touschner, Akron, for appellants.
Stephen M. Gabalac, Pros. Atty., and William E. Schultz, Akron, for appellees.
This court will not reverse the decision of the court below in a contempt proceeding in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Cady v. Cleveland Worsted Mills Co. (1933), 126 Ohio St. 171, 184 N.E.2d 511. The Court of Appeals determined that appellees were not in contempt of prior court orders.
No evidence has been adduced to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in not finding appellees in contempt. Therefore, that decision will not be disturbed. 1
Appellants also raise the issue of the refusal of the Court of Appeals to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Civ.R. 52, which provides, in part:
The above emphasized language is dispositive of this issue. Civ.R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary in a contempt proceeding. 2
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
1 We note, as did the Court of Appeals, that the sum set by appellees is not necessarily correct or even adequate. That question, however, is not before us in this appeal.
2 Civ.R. 52 is significantly different from Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Under federal practice, findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Contemnor Caron
...217, 218-219, 5 OBR 481, 481-482, 450 N.E.2d 1140, 1141-1142. As set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Birkel (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 19 O.O.3d 191, 417 N.E.2d 1249: "This court will not reverse decision of the court below in a contempt proceeding in the absence of a showing of ......
-
In re Lodico, 2005 Ohio 172 (OH 1/18/2005)
...The standard for reversal of a contempt finding is "abuse of discretion." As set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Birkel (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 417 N.E.2d 1249: "This court will not reverse the decision of the court below in a contempt proceeding in the absence of a showing of......
-
Advantage Bank v. Waldo Pub., LLC, 2009 Ohio 2816 (Ohio App. 6/15/2009)
...the trial court's finding of contempt and imposition of financial penalties was an abuse of its discretion. State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 417 N.E.2d 1249. An abuse of discretion is more than an error law or judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court's att......
-
Gulbrandsen v. Summit Acres, Inc.
...ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 138 Ohio St.3d 51, 2013-Ohio-5614, 3 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 21, citing State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 11, 417 N.E.2d 1249 (1981). {¶ 39} Courts may classify contempt as either direct or indirect. State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 204, 40......