Ohio Law

News and Announcements from the Supreme Court of Ohio and Other Governmental Entities Within the Buckeye State.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

5/16/2006 - Supreme Court Case Announcements and Administrative Actions

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0173. State v. Parks.
Carroll App. No. 04CA803, 2005-Ohio-6926. This cause is pending before the
court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 8, 2006,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court
of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration
of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither
notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist
as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals' order
certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

2006-0174. State v. Parks.
Columbiana App. No. 04 CO 19, 2005-Ohio-6926. This cause is pending before
the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 8,
2006, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the
court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed
consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas
appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a
conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the
court of appeals' order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

2006-0290. Jokic v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.
Lake App. No. 2004-L-135, 2005-Ohio-7044. This cause is pending before the
court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 10, 2006,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court
of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration
of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither
notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist
as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals' order
certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued orders imposing sanctions upon various
attorneys and judges for noncompliance with the provisions of various Gov.Bar
and Gov.Jud. Rules. The texts of the entries can be found here, along with lists of the
attorneys and judges who were sanctioned. The lists include each attorney’s or
judge’s Attorney Registration Number; the county and state of residence and the
county and state of the attorney’s or judge’s employer, as last registered with
the Attorney Registration Section; and the amount of the sanction fee imposed
by the Supreme Court.

Later


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home