Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 71 Ohio St.3d 1451 (1995)
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 71 Ohio St.3d 1451 (1995), 71 Ohio St. 3d 1451 (Ohio 1995)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Ohlaw Ohio
- Jurisdiction
- Ohlaw
- Date
- 1995-01-01
- Topic
- general
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 71 Ohio St.3d 1451 (1995) 644 N.E.2d 655-657Supreme Court of Ohio. 1995. MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSIALS Thursday, January 26, 1995 94-684. Karmasu v. Tate. Scioto County, No. 93CA2195.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 71 Ohio St.3d 1451 (1995). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS,71 Ohio St.3d 1451(1995)
644 N.E.2d 655-657
Supreme Court of Ohio.
1995.
Thursday, January 26, 1995
94-684.Karmasu v. Tate.Scioto County, No. 93CA2195. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County. On May 16, 1994, the record was filed in the Supreme Court. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief 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 January 25, 1995.Page 145294-2024.Simpson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.Butler County, No. CA93-09-173. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that said application be, and the same is hereby, granted, effective January 25, 1995.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.95-60.State v. McMillan.Lorain County, No. 91CA005081. Appellant has filed an untimely notice of appeal of the court of appeals' decision denying his application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED by the court,sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken, effective January 24, 1995.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court,sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.95-73.State v. Allan.Lucas County, No. L-93-165. Appellant has filed an untimely notice of appeal of the court of appeals' decision denying his application for delayed reconsideration and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED by the court,sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken, effective January 24, 1995.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court,sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.Page 1453