Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 66 Ohio St.3d 1478 (1993)
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 66 Ohio St.3d 1478 (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 1478 (Ohio 1993)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Ohio
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
- Date
- 1993-01-01
- Topic
- general
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 66 Ohio St.3d 1478 (1993) 612 N.E.2d 328-330Supreme Court of Ohio. 1993. MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSIALS Thursday, May 13, 1993 92-1405. State v. McIntyre. Summit County, No. 15348.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 66 Ohio St.3d 1478 (1993). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS,66 Ohio St.3d 1478(1993)
612 N.E.2d 328-330
Supreme Court of Ohio.
1993.
Thursday, May 13, 1993
92-1405.State v. McIntyre.Summit County, No. 15348.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2132.Duffy v. Willoughby Hills Bd. of Bldg. Zoning Appeals.Lake County, No. 91-L-068.Sua sponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2201.Ward v. Witzman.Stark County, No. CA-9018. This cause is pending before the court on the filing of a motion for an order directing the Court of Appeals for Stark County to certify its record. Appellants' motion for leave to file instanter and motion for leave to exceed the page limitation on their memorandum in support of jurisdiction were denied by this court on March 17, 1993. It appears from the records of this court that appellants have not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore have failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissedsua sponte, effective May 7, 1993.Page 147992-2297.In re Estate of Grimm.Hamilton County, No. C-920324.Sua sponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2338.State v. Miller.Franklin County, No. 92AP-52.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2350.Barclay Energy Corp. v. Limbach. Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 90-Z-191, 90-Z-192 and 90-Z-193.Sua sponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2402.State v. Thomas.Sandusky County, No. S-9-32.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2533.State v. Hitt.Summit County, No. 15414.Sua sponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.92-2563.Verbanic v. Verbanic.Trumbull County, No. 91-T-4521. This cause is pending before the court on the filing of a motion for an order directing the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County to certify its record. Appellant's motion for leave to exceed the page limitation on her memorandum in support of jurisdiction was denied by this court on January 27, 1993. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissedsua sponte, effective May 7, 1993.93-14.Gigax v. Repka.Montgomery County, No. CA 13386.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-154.State v. Velez.Defiance County, No. 4-92-11.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-156.State v. Smith.Ottawa County, No. 92-OT-009.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-245.State v. Jurovcik.Sandusky County, No. S-15-3. This cause is pending before the court on the filing of a motion for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County and as a claimed appeal as of right from said court. Appellant's request for extension of time to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction was denied by this court on March 4, 1993. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissedsua sponte, effective May 7, 1993.93-347.In re Flaherty.Summit County, No. 15779.Sua sponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-350.State v. Brown.Hamilton County, No. C-910742.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-365.State v. Dobies.Lake County, No. 91-L-123.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-430.State v. Causgrove.Geauga County, No. 91-G-1675. This cause is pending before the court on the filing of a motion for an order directing the Court of Appeals for Geauga County to certify its record and as a claimed appeal as of right from said court. Appellant's request for extension of time to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction was denied by this court on March 9, 1993. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,Page 1480
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissedsua sponte, effective May 7, 1993.93-437.State v. Jennings.Clark County, No. 2910.Suasponte, cause dismissed for want of prosecution, effective May 7, 1993.93-498.State v. Bennett.Montgomery County, No. 13293. This cause is pending before the court on the filing of a motion for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. Appellant's request for extension of time to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction was denied by this court on March 11, 1993. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissedsua sponte, effective May 7, 1993.Page 1481