State v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 11 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | 34361,Nos. 34311,s. 34311 |
| Citation | 167 Ohio St. 295,147 N.E.2d 847 |
| Parties | , 4 O.O.2d 342 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MORGAN, Appellant. The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. RALEY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Ann Fagan Ginger, Brooklyn, N. Y., and Thelma C. Furry, Akron, for appellant in cause No. 34311.
Samuel L. Devine, Pros. Atty., and Earl W. Allison, Columbus, for appellee in cause No. 34311.
Louis C. Capelle, Morse Johnson, Milton H. Schmidt and Chester R. Shook, Cincinnati, for appellants in cause No. 34361.
C. Watson Hover, Pros. Atty., and Carl B. Rubin, Cincinnati, for appellee in cause No. 34361.
In compliance with the mandates of the Supreme Court of the United States, this court has considered the causes in the light of the Sweezy and Watkins cases and do not find enough similarity to warrant a change in our former judgments. The former judgments of this court as reported in 164 Ohio St. 529, 133 N.E.2d 104, are adhered to.
Former judgments adhered to.
I have no sympathy for the attitude and conduct of these defendants. However, for the reasons briefly stated in my dissenting opinion at the time of the previous hearing of these cases, it is my firm belief that this court cannot affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in either case without adding provisions to our statutes which were never enacted by the General Assembly. Under the Ohio Constitution, Art. 2, § 1, this court has no such legislative authority.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raley v. State of Ohio Morgan v. State of Ohio
...See 354 U.S. 929, 77 S.Ct. 1391, 1 L.Ed.2d 1532. The remand resulted in a reaffirmance of the prior judgment without discussion, 167 Ohio St. 295, 147 N.E.2d 847, and on the present appeals we postponed further consideraton of the jurisdictional questions presented until the arguments on th......