Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

ROGOS ET AL. v. GAYDOS ET AL., 170 Ohio St. 586 (1960)

167 N.E.2d 94

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1960-04-27
Topic
general

ROGOS ET AL. v. GAYDOS ET AL., 170 Ohio St. 586 (1960) 167 N.E.2d 94 ROGOS ET AL., APPELLEES v. GAYDOS ET AL., APPELLANTS. No. 36451Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided April 27, 1960.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ROGOS ET AL. v. GAYDOS ET AL., 170 Ohio St. 586 (1960). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ROGOS ET AL. v. GAYDOS ET AL.,170 Ohio St. 586(1960)
167 N.E.2d 94
ROGOS ET AL., APPELLEES v. GAYDOS ET AL., APPELLANTS.
No. 36451
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided April 27, 1960.
Supreme Court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutional questioninvolved — Declaratory judgment — Seeking to void transfer ofmoney from parent to children — Evidence — Capacity of parentto make valid gift inter vivos — Claim undue influence andcoercion — Mental and physical condition of parent — Section 1,Article I, Constitution — Section 1, ArticleXIV, Amendments,U.S. Constitution — Due process.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
Messrs. Morley, Stickle, Keeley MurphyandMr. AndrewPangrace, for appellees.Mr. George E. Fedor, for appellants.
Per Curiam.
The appeal as of right herein is dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and PECK, JJ., concur.Page 1