Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio
JURISDICTIONAL MOTIONS ALLOWED, 62 Ohio St.3d 1502 (1992)
JURISDICTIONAL MOTIONS ALLOWED, 62 Ohio St.3d 1502 (1992), 62 Ohio St. 3d 1502 (Ohio 1992)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Ohlaw Ohio
- Jurisdiction
- Ohlaw
- Date
- 1992-01-01
- Topic
- general
JURISDICTIONAL MOTIONS ALLOWED, 62 Ohio St.3d 1502 (1992) 583 N.E.2d 965-974Supreme Court of Ohio. 1992. JURISDICTIONAL MOTIONS ALLOWED Wednesday, January 22, 1992 91-2001. Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co. Cuyahoga County, Nos. 58610 and 58654. On motion and cross-motion to certify the record.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed JURISDICTIONAL MOTIONS ALLOWED, 62 Ohio St.3d 1502 (1992). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
JURISDICTIONAL MOTIONS ALLOWED,62 Ohio St.3d 1502(1992)
583 N.E.2d 965-974
Supreme Court of Ohio.
1992.
Wednesday, January 22, 1992
91-2001.Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co.Cuyahoga County, Nos. 58610 and 58654. On motion and cross-motion to certify the record. Motions allowed.91-2064.Put-in-Bay Island Taxing Dist. Auth. v. Neise.OttawaCounty, No. 90-OT-024.91-2105.Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fallon-Murphy.FranklinCounty, No. 91AP-143.91-2106.Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v. Stark.Cuyahoga County, No. 58806.
SWEENEY, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., dissent.91-2121.Mitchell v. Burt.Montgomery County, No. CA 12244. On motion to certify the record. Motion allowed.
On motion for leave to proceed inpro hac vice.Motion denied.
RESNICK, J., dissents.
On motion for leave to exceed page limit and on motion to strike. Motions denied.Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 91-2079,Browning v. Burt, Montgomery County, No. CA 12176.91-2132.State v. McCarthy.Montgomery County, No. CA 12123. On motion for leave to appeal. Motion allowed.
WRIGHT, J., dissents.
On motion for leave to fileamicusof Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Motion granted.Page 1503