663 N.E.2d 533, 5411305Supreme Court of Ohio.
1996.
MOTION DOCKET Wednesday, May 15, 1996 94-2622. State v. Otte. Cuyahoga County, No. 64617. UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion filed by counsel for appellant to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the timely filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States,
IT IS ORDERED that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the compliance with the mandate and the execution of sentence be, and the same are hereby, stayed pending the timely filing of the petition in the Supreme Court of the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such petition is timely filed, this stay shall continue for an indefinite period pending final disposition of this cause by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Page 1485
F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., would grant the stay to a date certain.
PFEIFER J., would grant the stay to a date certain, one hundred eighty days from today.
STRATTON, J., would grant but reset.
95-846. State v. Williams. Trumbull County, No. 89-T-4210. UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion filed by counsel for appellant/cross-appellee to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the timely filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States,
IT IS ORDERED that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the compliance with the mandate and the execution of sentence be, and the same are hereby, stayed pending the timely filing of the petition in the Supreme Court of the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such petition is timely filed, this stay shall continue for an indefinite period pending final disposition of this cause by the Supreme Court of the United States.
PFEIFER, J., would stay only to a date certain, one hundred eighty days after today.
COOK, J., would stay only to a date certain.
95-1664. Shidel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Mahoning County, No. 94 C.A. 114. On motion to participate in oral argument. Motion denied.
96-614. State v. Martin. Hardin County, No. 6-95-11. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 95-1377 and 95-1466, State v. Gustafson, Mahoning County, No. 94 C.A. 232; briefing schedule stayed.
96-787. State ex rel. Quinn v. Davies. In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of respondent’s motion for protective order staying discovery until this court renders a decision on respondent’s motion to dismiss,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for protective order be, and hereby is, granted.
PFEIFER, J., dissents.
96-797. State v. Gearing. Cuyahoga County, No. 62202. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
96-806. State v. Higgins. Montgomery County, No. 14335. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
96-811. State v. Eames. Union County, No. 14-93-3. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
96-829. State v. Smith. Paulding County, No. 11-95-7. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
RESNICK, PFEIFER and STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
96-852. Holt v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. Butler County, No. CA95-11-192. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Entry Granting Motion for Certification, filed April 3, 1996:
“The above cause is before the court pursuant to a motion to certify conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court filed by counsel for appellant, Grange Mutual Casualty Co., on March 12, 1996, and a memorandum in opposition filed by counsel for appellee, Ingrid E. Holt, Executrix, on March 19, 1996. Appellant contends that the court’s decision in this case is in conflict with decisions by three other appellate courts: Thompson v. Utomo (Oct. 27, 1995), Lucas App. No. L-95-034, unreported [1995 WL 628242]; Estate of Joseph Simone v. Nationwide Insurance Co. (Nov. 3, 1994), Cuyahoga App. 67-81, unreported [1994 WL 613876]; and Berleman v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. (1992), 76 Ohio App.3d 81
[600 N.E.2d 1145].
Page 1486
“Upon due consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that its decision in this case is in fact in conflict with the three cases cited above. Accordingly, appellant’s motion to certify is hereby GRANTED. The issue for certification is whether a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of an insured decedent can recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the decedent’s insurance policy if he is not a named insured under the policy.”
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents.
RESNICK, J., not participating.
96-892. Associated Paper Stock, Inc. v. Tracy. Mahoning County, No. 95 C.A. 34. On motion for stay of execution. Motion granted.
PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., dissent.