3/29/1996 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

FRIDAY
March
29,
1996

MOTION DOCKET

96-658.
Adkins v. McFaul.
Cuyahoga County, No. 70210. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal
from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of
appellant's motion for stay of execution/proceedings and release on bond,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay of
execution/proceedings and release on bond be, and hereby is, denied, effective
March 28, 1996.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

95-1600.
Morey v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
Warren County, No. CA94-08-075. This cause is pending before the court as an
appeal from the Court of Appeals for Warren County. Upon consideration of the
joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and
hereby is, granted, effective March 28, 1996.

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

96-166.
Newingham v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin County, No. 95APD01-113. This cause is pending before the court as an
appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. It appears from the
records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due March 18,
1996, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and
therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon
consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed
sua sponte, effective March 28, 1996.

96-188.
Fifth Street Realty Co. v. Zalenski.

Lorain County, No. 95CA006209. This cause is pending before the court as an
appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County. It appears from the records
of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due March 19, 1996, in
compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has
failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration
thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed
sua sponte, effective March 28, 1996.

96-550.
State v. Smith.
Hamilton County, No. C-950079. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the
court of appeals' decision affirming the trial court's denial of his petition
for post-conviction relief. This appeal involves a civil matter and not an
appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in
S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective March 28, 1996, that the
motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant
failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be,
and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

96-613.
State v. Grandberry.
Lorain County, No. 95CA006138. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the
court of appeals' decision affirming the trial court's denial of his petition
for post-conviction relief. This appeal involves a civil matter and not an
appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in
S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective March 28, 1996, that the
motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant
failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be,
and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DRAFT