Falls Elec. Contr. v. Tri-State Constr., Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Falls Elec. Contr. v. Tri-State Constr., Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004)

2004 Ohio 6952

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 2004

DocketCase No. 2004-T-0104.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2004 Ohio 6952 (Falls Elec. Contr. v. Tri-State Constr., Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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.

Bluebook

Falls Elec. Contr. v. Tri-State Constr., Unpublished Decision (12-17-2004), 2004 Ohio 6952 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On August 5, 2004, appellant, Tri-State Construction, filed a notice of appeal from a July 12, 2004 judgment of the Newton Falls Municipal Court. In that judgment, the trial court dismissed the case for improper venue.

{¶ 2} It is well established that a judgment dismissing a case for improper venue is not a final appealable order. Stateex rel. Allied Chemical Co. v. Aurelius (1984),16 Ohio App.3d 69; Snell v. Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. (1899), 60 Ohio St. 256.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed due to lack of a final appealable order. We also note that William W. Bridge, III, who is not an attorney, is prohibited from representing a corporation in an appeal. A layperson can only represent themselves on appeal, and not another party.Vizzini v. Nichols, 11th Dist. No. 2003-P-0085, 2003-Ohio-6225.

Appeal dismissed.

Grendell, J., Westcott Rice, J., concur.

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