03/27/2003 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

[Cite as 03/27/2003 Case Announcements, 2003-Ohio-1494.]

The Supreme Court of Ohio

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

March 27, 2003

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

2002-2137. Common Cause/Ohio v. Ohio Elections Comm.
Franklin App. Nos. 02AP-439, 02AP-440 and 02AP-441, 150 Ohio App.3d 31,
2002-Ohio-5965. Discretionary appeal allowed on Proposition of Law No. I.

O'Connor, J., concurs.

Brogan, Farmer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in part because they
would allow both propositions of law.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

James A. Brogan, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

Sheila G. Farmer, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2003-0225. Buckley v. Wintering.
Franklin App. No. 02AP-511, 2003-Ohio-824. This cause is pending before the
court as discretionary appeals and a cross-appeal and a claimed appeal of right.
Upon consideration of the application for dismissal of the appeals of Michael R.
Wintering and Nancie E. Buckley,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal of the
appeals of Michael R. Wintering and Nancie E. Buckley be, and hereby is, granted.

It appears from the records of this court that the appellee/cross-appellant
American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, has not filed a
jurisdictional memorandum, due March 3, 2003, in compliance with the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this case with
the requisite diligence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the cross-appeal be
dismissed, sua sponte.

2003-0425. Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of
Revision.
Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2002-R-1206. This cause is pending before the court
as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of the appellant's
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.

2
03-27-03