
    No. 215
    LUFF v. STATE
    No. 20315.
    Supreme Court
    Motion to file pet. in err.
    Dock. Feb. 9, 1927,
    5 Abs. 105.
    465. ERROR — Does Appeals Court have authority to review, having once passed on same error?
    First Publication of this Case
    Attorneys — Day & Day for Luff; E. C. Stanton for State; all of Cleveland.
   Luff 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.  