11/21/1996 Case Announcements - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

COLUMBUS

ANNOUNCEMENT

THURSDAY

November 21, 1996

MOTION DOCKET

96-2301. State v. Palmer.
Belmont App. No. 89-B-28. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal
from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County. Upon consideration of appellant's
motion for stay of proceedings in this court,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay of proceedings in this
court be, and hereby is, denied.

Cook, J., would deny the stay and would appoint new counsel and grant
forty days to file from the date of the appointment

Pfeifer, J., would appoint the Public Defender.

Moyer, C.J., dissents and would grant the stay.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

96-1623. Kirkendoll v. State Farm Ins. Co.
Cuyahoga App. Nos. 69448 and 69452. This cause is pending before the court as a
discretionary appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' application for
dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and
hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and
hereby is, dismissed.

96-2574. State v. Michael.
Columbiana App. No. 91-C-39. On November 18, 1996, appellant filed a notice of
appeal of the judgment of the court of appeals entered in case No. 91-C-39 on
October 2, 1996. Appellant asserted in his notice of appeal that the case
originated in the court of appeals and is an appeal of right.

It is determined by the court that this case did not originate in the
court of appeals but is an appeal of the court of appeals' decision denying
appellant's application for reopening under App.R. 26(B). Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R.
II(1)(A)(2) provides that an appeal from the decision of a court of appeals
under App.R. 26(B) in a noncapital case shall be designated a claimed appeal of
right and whereas appellant did not file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction
as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is,
dismissed.