MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 69 Ohio St.3d 1486 (1994)

635 N.E.2d 40, 41Supreme Court of Ohio.
1994.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSIALS Thursday, July 7, 1994 94-868. Murphy v. Columbus. Franklin County, No. 93AP1111581. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. On April 26, 1994, this court denied appellant’s request for an extension of time to file memorandum in support of jurisdiction. In that appellant has failed to timely file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, effective July 5, 1994.

94-1008. State ex rel. McKenzie v. Powell’s Convalescent Home Franklin County, No. 93APD05751. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of the joint application to dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application be, and the same is hereby, granted, effective July 5, 1994.

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

94-1285. Guiles v. State. Marion County, No. 9-94-15. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County. In that appellant failed to timely file a notice of appeal in the court of appeals and therefore failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to former S.Ct.Prac.R. I, Section I,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed, effective July 5, 1994.

94-1364. Staffilino Chevrolet, Inc. v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. Franklin County, No. 93APE111598. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdiction on June 27, 1994. It has come to the attention of the court that the memorandum in support of jurisdiction exceeds the applicable page limit under the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective July 5, 1994, that the memorandum in support of jurisdiction be, and is hereby, stricken. In that the timely filing of a memorandum in support of jurisdiction is a jurisdictional requirement under S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2,

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