¶1Luff contends in the Supreme Court, that it is immaterial, that a former proceeding in error was affirmed and remanded for re-sentence, by the Supreme Court, and that when error is again presented, it makes no difference that Court of Appeals has passed on assignment of error, and fact that Appeals Court refuses to review because of no authority to do so, is not well taken.
5 Ohio Law. Abs. 173
Luff v. State
Decided February 9, 1927
Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1927-02-09
Decided 1927-02-09