Disciplinary Counsel v. Pagac
664 N.E.2d 534, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1481
Opinion
On May 6, 1996, respondent Paul Pagac III filed a motion requesting that this court amend its decision of June 28, 1995. Respondent’s motion is, in substance, a motion for reconsideration and, as such, is not timely under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI. Whereas S.CtPrae.R. XI prohibits the filing of untimely motions for reconsideration,
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that respondent’s motion be, and hereby is, stricken, effective May 10,1996.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Disciplinary Counsel v. Pagac, 664 N.E.2d 534, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1481 (Ohio 1996).
664 N.E.2d 534 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Pagac) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.