04/06/2004 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 04/06/2004 Case Announcements, 2004-Ohio-1727.]
The Supreme Court of Ohio

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

April 6, 2004

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

1989-0846. State v. Lott.
Cuyahoga App. No. 54537. By entry filed March 24, 2004, this court ordered that
appellant's sentence be carried into execution on Tuesday, the 27th day of April,
2004. In order to facilitate this court's timely consideration of any matters relating
to the execution of appellant's sentence,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Chief Justice may suspend application of
any provisions of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, including, but not
limited to, the filing requirements imposed by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that service of documents as required
by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2) shall be personal or by facsimile transmission.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that counsel of record for the parties
shall supply this court with a copy of any document relating to this matter that is
filed in, or issued by, any other court in this state or any federal court, as well as
any commutation, pardon, or warrant of reprieve issued by the Governor. A copy
of the document shall be delivered to the Office of the Clerk as soon as possible,
either personally or by facsimile transmission.

2004-0485. State v. Ketterer.
Butler C.P. No. CR2003030309. This cause is pending before the court as a death
penalty appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. Upon
consideration of appellant's motion for stay of execution pending final disposition
of his appeal in this court,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay be, and hereby is,
granted.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2002-1503. State ex rel. Hayes v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 01AP-1087, 2002-Ohio-3675. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. It appears to
this court that no briefs have been filed in this case; therefore,

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

2003-1070. Gabbard v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
Franklin App. Nos. 02AP-976 and 02AP-1168, 2003-Ohio-2265. This cause is
pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin
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.

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

2003-1901. State ex rel. Campbell v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 02AP-1253, 2003-Ohio-4824. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. It appears to
this court that no briefs have been filed in this case; therefore,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed sua
sponte.

2003-2011. State v. Skatzes.
Montgomery App. No. 15848, 2003-Ohio-516. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from a decision of a court of appeals under App.R. 26(B) in a
case involving the death penalty. Whereas appellant's merit brief was filed beyond
the deadline for filing and should have been rejected by the Clerk pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant's merit brief be,
and hereby is, stricken.

Whereas, the appellant is not in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the
Supreme Court and has failed to prosecute this case with the requisite diligence,

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

2
04-06-04

2004-0553. State ex rel. Walton Hills v. Bedford City Bd. of Edn.
In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a
writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of relator'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.

3
04-06-04