Articles Tagged: 719 N.E.2d 966

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Stefanski. No. 99-1649.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Marion App. No. 9-98-63.

719 N.E.2d 966 Davis v. Dalton. No. 99-1657.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Lorain App. No. 98CA007099.

719 N.E.2d 966 HKS Realty Co. v. Williams. No. 99-1635.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Cuyahoga App. No. 74390.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Purvey. No. 99-1644.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Lorain App. No. 97CA006935.

719 N.E.2d 966 Belt v. Geneva. No. 99-1629.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Tuscarawas App. No. 1999AP030018.

719 N.E.2d 966 Budd v. Wilkinson. No. 99-1842.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. MERIT DOCKET In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus by Robert P. Budd Sua sponte, cause dismissed. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Israfil. No. 99-1624.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Montgomery App. No. 17472.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Reed. No. 99-1621.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Lucas App. No. L-98-1367. Resnick, J., not participating.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Dawson. No. 99-1568.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Summit App. No. 19179. Page 1450 Moyer, C.J., would allow on Proposition of Law No. I. Cook, J., would allow on Propositions of Law Nos. […]

719 N.E.2d 966 Dolan v. Kronenberg. No. 99-1867.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. MERIT DOCKET Appeal from Cuyahoga App. No. 76054. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). This cause is therefore dismissed. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, […]

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Goodballet. No. 99-902.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Columbiana App. No. 98CO15. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., would allow on Propositions of Law Nos. I and IV and hold the cause for the […]

719 N.E.2d 966 Cleveland v. Rhoades. No. 99-1646.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Cuyahoga App. No. 74572.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Bradford. No. 99-1601.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Lorain App. No. 98CA007264.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Brumett. No. 99-1653.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Hamilton App. No. C-980917. Moyer, C.J., would allow on Propositions of Law Nos. IV and V and hold the cause for the decision in 99-765, […]

719 N.E.2d 966 Heard v. United Parcel Serv. No. 99-1632.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Franklin App. No. 98AP-1267. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Ochs. No. 99-999.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Knox App. No. 98CA0003.

719 N.E.2d 966 State ex rel. Budreaux v. Ryzner. No. 99-1791.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. MERIT DOCKET In Mandamus. On answer of respondents. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

719 N.E.2d 966 State v. Barnhart. No. 99-1611.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Washington App. No. 98CA50.

719 N.E.2d 966 State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. No. 99-1800.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. MERIT DOCKET In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

719 N.E.2d 966 Marcum v. Rice. No. 99-1532.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Franklin App. Nos. 98AP-717, 98AP-718, 98AP-719 and 98AP-721. Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

719 N.E.2d 966 Gourmet Beverage Ctr., Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. No. 99-1661.Supreme Court of Ohio. November 24, 1999. DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISCRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED Appeal from Licking App. No. 98CA128.