History
  • No items yet
midpage
Benham v. Brassel
16 Ohio Law. Abs. 624
Ohio Ct. App.
1934
Check Treatment

OPINION

By THE COURT

The above entitled cause is now being-determined on application for rehearing presented by counsel for appellees.

In the interest of proper procedure in the matter of applications for rehearing, attention is called to the fact that motions of this character are not to be filed with the Clerk of Courts, but, under rules of the court, should be mailed to members of the court within ten days after original opinion is filed. Except, as we learned by chance during our recent session in Clark County, the motion filed in the clerk’s office might not have come to our attention for a long-period of time.

We find, in some instances, that attorneys apparently have the idea that the filing of motions for rehearing is a prerequisite to prosecuting error to the Supreme Court.

We hope to correct this idea in the interest of the preparing and filing of the journal entry conforming to the court’s decision without unnecessary delay.

We have examined the brief attached to the application for rehearing but find no questions presented that were not considered and passed upon. The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Benham v. Brassel
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Mar 31, 1934
Citation: 16 Ohio Law. Abs. 624
Docket Number: No 333
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.