Buckley v. Wintering

Ohio Supreme Court

Buckley v. Wintering

98 Ohio St. 3d 1503, 2003 WL 1571738

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 27, 2003

Docket2003-0225

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Ohio St. 3d 1503 (Buckley v. Wintering) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buckley v. Wintering, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1503, 2003 WL 1571738 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 02AP-511, 2003-Ohio-824. This cause is pending before the court as discretionary appeals and a cross-appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of the application for dismissal of the appeals of Michael R. Wintering and Nancie E. Buckley,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal of the appeals of Michael R. Wintering and Nancie E. Buckley be, and hereby is, granted.

It appears from the records of this court that the appellee/cross-appellant American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, has not filed a jurisdictional memorandum, due March 3, 2003, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this case with the requisite diligence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the cross-appeal be dismissed, sua sponte.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Franklin App. No. 02AP-511, 2003-Ohio-824. This cause is pending before the court as discretionary appeals and a cross-appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of the application for dismissal of the appeals of Michael R. Wintering and Nancie E. Buckley,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal of the appeals of Michael R. Wintering and Nancie E. Buckley be, and hereby is, granted.

It appears from the records of this court that the appellee/cross-appellant American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, has not filed a jurisdictional memorandum, due March 3, 2003, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this case with the requisite diligence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the cross-appeal be dismissed, sua sponte.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Ohio St. 3d 1503, 2003 WL 1571738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-wintering-ohio-2003.