BLODGETT v. BLODGETT

No. 88-2135.

49 Ohio St. 3d 243 (1990)

BLODGETT, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. BLODGETT, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided March 14, 1990.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, John C. Elam, David W. Hardymon, Robert C. Paxton II & Associates and Robert C. Paxton II, for appellee and cross-appellant.

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L. Andrew Reed, Jr., Hamilton Desaussure, Jr. and William M. Oldham, for appellants and cross-appellee.


WRIGHT, J.

William Blodgett contends that the court of appeals erred in refusing to dismiss Nancy Blodgett's appeal on the basis of her execution of the satisfaction of judgment. For the reasons that follow, we agree with this contention and hold that when Nancy executed the satisfaction of judgment she waived her right to continue her appeal.

It is a well-established principle of law that a satisfaction of judgment renders an appeal from that judgment moot...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases