2/8/1999 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

MONDAY

February 8, 1999

MERIT DOCKET

98-259. State ex rel. Brown v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 97APD02-253. This cause, here on appeal from the Court of
Appeals for Franklin County, was considered in the manner prescribed by law.
Upon consideration of appellee's motion to dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to dismiss be, and hereby is,
sustained.

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

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg
Stratton, JJ., concur.

MOTION DOCKET

98-1607. Hillyer v. State Farm Ins. Co.
Lake App. No. 97-L-031. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal of a
judgment entered by the Court of Appeals for Lake County on June 29, 1998. On
December 4, 1998, this court entered an order extending the time for filing the
record and temporarily remanding this case to the court of appeals for the purpose
of entering a decision on reconsideration of its judgment.

On January 21, 1999, the Clerk of the court of appeals certified and
transmitted the record to this court. It appearing from the record that the court of
appeals entered its decision on reconsideration on December 21, 1998, vacating its
earlier judgment and substituting a new judgment,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the appellants show cause
within twenty days of the date of this entry why this appeal from the earlier
judgment entered by the court of appeals on June 29, 1998, should not be
dismissed.

DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

98-2452. Clark v. Forney.
Sandusky App. No. S-97-053. Upon consideration of the jurisdictional
memoranda filed in this case, the court hereby allows the appeal. The Clerk shall
issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for
Sandusky County, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules
of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Cook, J., would hold this cause for the decision in 98-1462, Waite v.
Progressive Ins. Co., Huron App. No. H-97-036.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

98-423. Columbus Bar Assn. v. King.
In an order filed December 9, 1998, this court ordered relator to file the name of a
monitor for respondent within thirty days of the date of the order. On December
28, 1998, relator filed a request for an extension of time to appoint a monitor until
January 19, 1999. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that relator shall appoint a
monitor and file the name of the monitor within twenty days of the date of this
entry.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-2394. State v. Varner.
Trumbull App. No. 96-T-5581. This cause is pending before the court as a
discretionary appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of
appellant's application for dismissal,
2
02/08/99

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.

99-214. Klein v. Dietz.
Mahoning App. No. 95 C.A. 47. This cause is pending before the court as a
discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On January 29, 1999, appellant
filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that exceeds the page limitation
prescribed by S.Ct.Prac.R. III(1)(C). Whereas appellant has not filed a
memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with S.Ct.Prac.R. III within
the time for perfecting her appeal, and whereas, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
II(2)(A)(1), appellant's failure to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction
within the prescribed time period divests this court of jurisdiction to hear the
appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant's memorandum in
support of jurisdiction be, and hereby is, stricken.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be,
and hereby is, dismissed.

3
02/08/99