RECONSIDERATION DOCKET, 77 Ohio St.3d 1403 (1996)

670 N.E.2d 476 — 481Supreme Court of Ohio.
1996.

RECONSIDERATION DOCKET Thursday, October 3, 199696-615. State v. Dicus.

Hardin App. No. 6-95-12. The decline of jurisdiction in this discretionary appeal is reconsidered, sua sponte, and it is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the appeal be allowed. The Clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Hardin County.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be consolidated with Supreme Court case No. 96-616, State v. Dicus, and held for the decision in Supreme Court case No. 96-838, Akron v. Kirby.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the briefing schedule be stayed.

96-960. Smith v. Smith.

Summit App. No. 17462. On October 1, 1996, appellant filed a document titled “Objection to entry, a demand not to dismiss, a demand to correct errors, and a demand that the Court accept jurisdiction.” Appellant’s document is, in substance, a motion for reconsideration that was untimely filed. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(2)(C) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration that is not timely,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the document be, and hereby is, stricken.

96-1528. Smith v. Spicer.

In Mandamus. On October 1, 1996, relator filed a document titled “Objection to entry, a demand to annul the judgment, objections to dismissal, a demand that this case not be dismissed and a demand that the judge uphold his oath of office.” Relator’s document is, in substance, a motion for reconsideration that was untimely filed. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(2)(C) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration that is not timely,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the document be, and hereby is, stricken.

96-1834. Davis v. Davis.

Montgomery App. No. CA 15628. Reported at 76 Ohio St.3d 1480, 669 N.E.2d 861.

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution be, and hereby is, denied.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD. v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., 53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)

53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)2015-Ohio-5019 CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.…

2 years ago

McCAMMON v. COOPER, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904)

McCammon v. Cooper, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904) Jan. 5, 1904 · Supreme Court of Ohio · No. 8237…

5 years ago

BANK OF AM., N.A. v. SMITH, 2018-Ohio-3638

[Cite as Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith, 2018-Ohio-3638.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST…

7 years ago

STATE v. MARCUM, 2018-Ohio-1009 (2018)

[Cite as State v. Marcum, 2018-Ohio-1009.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF…

8 years ago

In re A.F., 2018-Ohio-310 (Oh. App. 1/26/2018)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN RE: :…

8 years ago

Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2017-007

March 13, 2017 The Honorable Paul J. Gains Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney 6th Floor Administration…

8 years ago