Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

MOTION DOCKET, 89 Ohio St.3d 1467 (2000)

MOTION DOCKET, 89 Ohio St.3d 1467 (2000), 732 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio 2000)

Type: Opinion
Court: Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Date: 2000-01-01
Topic: general

MOTION DOCKET, 89 Ohio St.3d 1467 (2000) 732 N.E.2d 999Supreme Court of Ohio. 2000. MOTION DOCKET Announcement Wednesday August 2, 200096-2029. State v. White. Ashland C.P.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MOTION DOCKET, 89 Ohio St.3d 1467 (2000). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MOTION DOCKET,89 Ohio St.3d 1467(2000)

732 N.E.2d 999

Supreme Court of Ohio.

2000.

MOTION DOCKET

Announcement Wednesday August 2, 2000

96-2029. State v. White.Ashland C.P. No. 96CRI07366. On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(5). Application denied.96-2509. State v. White.Ashland App. No. 96COA01182. On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(5). Application denied.99-2117. Miele v. Ribovich.Cuyahoga App. No. 75489. On motion to strike portions of the appendix of the appellee's merit brief. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

On motion to strike reply brief and appellant's motion to strike filed July 3, 2000. Motion denied.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., would also grant leave of ten days to reply.

Moyer, C.J., and Resnick, J., dissent.99-2216. Mayer v. Bristow.Crawford App. No. 3-98-29. On motion to strike appellee's merit brief by James J. Mayer and intervenor Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery. Motion denied and leave of ten days granted to reply.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.00-244. Romig v. Tuscarawas Cty. Dept. of Human Serv.Tuscarawas App. No. 99AP120073. On notice of return of minor child to custody of appellant.Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.00-636. Kishmarton v. William Bailey Constr., Inc.Cuyahoga App. No. 74893. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the following issues:

"(1) Where the vendee and builder-vendor enter into an agreement for the future construction of a residence, does the vendee's claim for breach of an implied duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner ariseex contractuorex delicto?

"(2) Regardless of whether the claim is in contract or tort, in such a case, can the plaintiff recover emotional distress damages for loss of enjoyment, annoyance or discomfort?"

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 00-684,Kishmarton v.William Bailey Constr., Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 74893.

The conflict cases areLloyd v. William Fannin Bldrs., Inc.(1973),40 Ohio App.2d 507, 69 O.O.2d 444,320 N.E.2d 738;Bartonv. Ellis(1986),34 Ohio App.3d 251,518 N.E.2d 18;Tibbs v. Natl.Homes Constr. Corp.(1977),52 Ohio App.2d 281, 6 O.O.3d 300,369 N.E.2d 1218; andVistein v. Keeney(1990),71 Ohio App.3d 92,593 N.E.2d 52.

Resnick, J., not participating.Page 146800-719. Carr v. Eli Lilly Co.Cuyahoga App. Nos. 75678, 75679 and 75680. On motion for admissionpro hac viceby Hugh E. McKay for John C. Maloney, Jr., for Smithkline Beecham Corporation. Motion denied as moot.00-801. Littrell v. Wigglesworth.Butler App. No. CA99-05-092. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the following issue:

"The issue for certification is whether R.C.3937.18precludes recovery merely because the insured's under-insured motorist coverage limits are identical to or less than the tortfeasor's liability limits when, due to the presence of multiple claimants, the insured is unable to recover the tortfeasor's limits."

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 00-745,Littrell v.Wigglesworth, Butler App. Nos. CA99-05-092 and CA99-08-1410.

The conflict cases areEstate of Fox v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.(June 12, 1998), Darke App. No. 1456, unreported, 1998 WL 309212; andBerry v. Przyborowski(Nov. 19, 1999), Miami App. No. 99-CA-21, unreported, 1999 WL 1043880.00-833. State v. Tipler.Summit App. No. 19344. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.00-1085. Funk v. Rent All Mart, Inc.

Certified State Law Question, No. 3:00 CV 7086. On review of order certifying a question of state law. The court will answer the following questions certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division:

"Is the statute of limitations under Ohio Rev. Code §2305.112viable in light of the ruling inJohnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc.,85 Ohio St.3d 298,707 N.E.2d 1107(1999) which rendered the enabling statute, Ohio Rev. Code §2745.01unconstitutional? Does Ohio Rev. Code §2305.112apply to a common law cause of action brought by an employee against his employer pursuant toBlankenship v. Cincinnati MilacronChemicals, Inc.,69 Ohio St.2d 608,433 N.E.2d 572,cert.Denied,459 U.S. 857(1992)? If the statute of limitations is not one year pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code §2305.112, what is the applicable statute of limitations for such causes of action?"

00-1126. State v. Rollins.Lucas App. No. L-99-1042. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.00-1131. State v. Montgomery.Montgomery App. No. 17203. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.00-1132. State v. Martin.Cuyahoga App. No. 73455. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.00-1147. State v. Taylor.Montgomery App. No. 17142. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.00-1155. State v. Norman.Cuyahoga App. No. 76140. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.00-1171. State v. Wyrick.Fairfield App. Nos. 99CA56 and 99CA63. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.00-1183. Banning v. Lake Cty.Lake App. No. 99-L-113. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists;sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 00-472 and 00-481,Johnson v. Greene Cty. DrugPage 1469Task Force, Greene App. No. 99CA61; briefing schedule stayed.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.00-1219. State v. Johnson.Mahoning App. No. 96CA190. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant's motion for limited remand to the trial court to issue an arrest warrant and request to expedite,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and hereby is, granted.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.00-1233. In re Estate of Stewart.Lorain App. No. 99CA007422. On motion for stay of court of appeals' judgment. Motion granted; no supersedeas bond required.