Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

MOTION DOCKET, 74 Ohio St.3d 1523 (1996)

MOTION DOCKET, 74 Ohio St.3d 1523 (1996), 74 Ohio St. 3d 1523 (Ohio 1996)

Type: Opinion
Court: Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Date: 1996-01-01
Topic: general

MOTION DOCKET, 74 Ohio St.3d 1523 (1996) 660 N.E.2d 740-745Supreme Court of Ohio. 1996. MOTION DOCKET Wednesday, February 14, 1996 93-1144. State v. Demars. Cuyahoga County, No. 62148.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MOTION DOCKET, 74 Ohio St.3d 1523 (1996). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MOTION DOCKET,74 Ohio St.3d 1523(1996)

660 N.E.2d 740-745

Supreme Court of Ohio.

1996.

MOTION DOCKET

Wednesday, February 14, 1996

93-1144.State v. Demars.Cuyahoga County, No. 62148. On motion for reconsideration under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(1)(B). Motion denied.95-572.Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Lorain County, No. 94CA005877. On motion ofamicus curiaeOhio Electric Utility Institute to file reply brief. The motion fails for want of four votes on the following vote:

MOYER, C.J., and F.E. SWEENEY, J., vote to deny.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., vote to grant.

WRIGHT and COOK, JJ., not participating.95-694.N. Olmsted Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision. Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 93-A-347 and 93-A-348. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied.

DOUGLAS, J., dissents.95-839.Olmsted Falls Village Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision. Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-X-998. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied.

DOUGLAS, J., dissents.95-1151.Fawn Lake Apts. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision. Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-D-954. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied.

DOUGLAS, J., dissents.95-2363.Holman v. Licking Cty.Licking County, No. 94CA50. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied;sua sponte, leave of fourteen days granted to file.

MOYER, C.J., dissents and would grant the motion to dismiss.95-2447.Maxxim Med., Inc. v. Tracy. Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-X-224. On motion to expedite briefing schedule and oral argument. Motion denied.Page 152496-24.State v. Davis.Columbiana County, No. 94CO12. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.96-26.State v. Hill.Franklin County, No. 91AP-792. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.96-55.State v. Holmes.Licking County, No. 95CA61. On motion for appeal bond. Motion denied.96-63.State v. Cooper.Hamilton County, No. C-870520. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.96-99.State v. Howell.Warren County, No. CA95-06-057. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists;sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 95-1377 and 95-1466,State v. Gustafson, Mahoning County, No. 94 C.A. 232; briefing schedule stayed.96-113.Thompson v. Utomo.Lucas County, No. L-95-034. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals' Decision and Judgment Entry, filed January 5, 1996:

"Upon consideration thereof, this court finds that our decision in this case is in conflict with the decisions inDionandLynch[infra] on the issue of whether R.C.3937.18and the rule announced in [State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v.]Alexander[(1992),62 Ohio St.3d 397,583 N.E.2d 309] require that a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of the insured decedent be allowed to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy even though such beneficiary is not a defined insured.

"On consideration whereof, this court finds appellant/cross-appellee's motion to certify well taken. This case is hereby ordered certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio as it is in conflict withDion v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins.Co.(March 24, 1992), Defiance App. No. 4-91-14, unreported [1992 WL 63281], andLynch v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co.(March 21, 1994), Butler App. No. CA93-06-099, unreported [1994 WL 93163], as set forth above. It is so ordered."Sua sponte, this cause is consolidated with 95-2509,infra.96-140.State ex rel. Hines v. Ohio Parole Bd. Franklin County, No. 95APE05-623. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' motion to stay the judgment of the court of appeals entered December 6, 1995,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to stay the judgment be, and hereby is, granted, effective February 13, 1996, pending disposition of this cause in this court.

WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.