Ohio Supreme Court, 1922

Schario v. State

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 5, 1922 · Wanamaker

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 263; 138 N.E. 63; 105 Ohio St. 535; 1922 Ohio LEXIS 296

Cases that cite this one

35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State Ex Rel. Emerald People's Utility District v. Joseph (Or. 1982)
United States v. William Brainer, Eugene Gressman, Esq., Amicus Curiae (4th Cir. 1982)
State Ex Rel. Watson v. Merialdo (Nev. 1954)
Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State (Tex. App. 1989)
Coate v. Omholt (Mont. 1983)
State v. Buser (Kan. 2015)
In re Allcat Claims Service, L.P. and John Weakly (Tex. 2011)
Gurtner v. Gurtner (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Savoie v. Grange Mutual Insurance (Ohio 1993)
Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (Ohio 1993)
Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
United States v. Brainer (District Court, D. Maryland 1981)
United States v. Howard (District Court, D. Maryland 1977)
Sands v. Albert Pike Motor Hotel (Ark. 1968)
Waite v. Burgess (Nev. 1952)
State Ex Rel. Kostas v. Johnson (Ind. 1946)
State Ex Rel. Galbreath v. District Court (Mont. 1939)
Lorraine v. McComb (Cal. 1934)
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Henderson (Ohio 1931)
Crawford v. State (Ohio 1927)
Madjorous v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 1924)
State ex rel. Smith v. Barnell (Ohio 1924)
Cynthia Brown v. David Yost (6th Cir. 2024)
Tom Benson v. State (Tex. App. 2015)
Tripodi Family Trust v. Muskingum Watershed, 2007 Ap 09 0056 (12-26-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

WANAMAKER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Schario was convicted by the Canton Criminal Court of violating the Crabbe Act and prosecuted error to the common pleas, in which a petition in error was filed within 30 days after the judgment. More than 30 days after the filing of the petition in error the State moved to dismiss the action because more than 30 days had passed since the filing and the case had not been heard by the common pleas court. The motion was sustained, error prosecuted to the Appeals Court where the judgment was affirmed and now error is prosecuted to this court. Held by Supreme Court in reversing the judgment:

1. The language of the law, constitutional or statutory, should be given the ordinary and usual meaning of the words and phrases enployed.

2. Sections 6212-13 to 6212-20, G. C., providing among other things that “the case shall be heard by such reviewing court within not more than thirty court days after filing such petition in error,” does not include within its terms the final consideration, determination and judgment upon such petition in error, and the record therein.

3. So much of such act (Section 6212-20, G. C., as reads, “A petition in error . . . filed in any court to reverse a conviction for a violation of this act, or to reverse a judgment affirming such conviction . . . shall be heard by such reviewing court within not more than thirty court days after filing of such petition in error is in conflict with the constitution, and is null and void.

4. An act of the general assembly attempting to peremptorily prescribe the time within which any court in the exercise of its judicial function shall hear or determine a matter properly within its jurisdiction is a legislative invasion of judicial power, and, as such, is unreasonable and unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.