Cmk, Ltd. v. Board of County Comms., Unpublished Decision (9-5-2003)
This text of Cmk, Ltd. v. Board of County Comms., Unpublished Decision (9-5-2003) (Cmk, Ltd. v. Board of County Comms., Unpublished Decision (9-5-2003)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} In determining whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, a court of appeals must review the motion to see if it calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or if it raises issues not considered properly by the court. Garfield Hts.City School Dist. v. State Bd. of Edn. (1992),
{¶ 3} Because the trial court had possession of the exhibits, but failed to deliver them to the clerk for timely transmission to this Court, we find that the motion for reconsideration in this case is well taken. The motion is granted.
{¶ 4} The decision and journal entry entered in this case on August 20, 2003, is hereby vacated and the appeal reinstated. The Court shall reconsider its decision and issue a new judgment in due course.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cmk, Ltd. v. Board of County Comms., Unpublished Decision (9-5-2003), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cmk-ltd-v-board-of-county-comms-unpublished-decision-9-5-2003-ohioctapp-2003.