Hamrick v. Wellman Products Group, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2004)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hamrick v. Wellman Products Group, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2004)

2004 Ohio 5958

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2004

DocketC.A. No. 03CA0146-M.

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2004 Ohio 5958 (Hamrick v. Wellman Products Group, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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

Hamrick v. Wellman Products Group, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2004), 2004 Ohio 5958 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY {¶ 1} Appellant has moved this court to reconsider our decision and order, which was journalized on September 29, 2004, and which affirmed the Medina County Court of Common Pleas' judgment granting Appellee's motion for a directed verdict and imposed sanctions on Appellant for bringing a frivolous appeal. Appellee has responded to the motion.

{¶ 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), 85 Ohio App.3d 117. Appellant argued that the decision should be reconsidered because, while this court imposed sanctions on Appellant, the last paragraph of the opinion stated that there were reasonable grounds for the appeal.

{¶ 3} The court finds that the motion for reconsideration in this case indeed calls attention to an obvious error. Appellant's motion for reconsideration is granted. Upon reconsideration, the decision dated September 29, 2004 is hereby amended on page 19 to state as follows: "The Court finds that there were no reasonable grounds for this appeal." The motion is granted and the decision is amended.

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

JOURNAL ENTRY {¶ 1} Appellant has moved this court to reconsider our decision and order, which was journalized on September 29, 2004, and which affirmed the Medina County Court of Common Pleas' judgment granting Appellee's motion for a directed verdict and imposed sanctions on Appellant for bringing a frivolous appeal. Appellee has responded to the motion.

{¶ 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), 85 Ohio App.3d 117. Appellant argued that the decision should be reconsidered because, while this court imposed sanctions on Appellant, the last paragraph of the opinion stated that there were reasonable grounds for the appeal.

{¶ 3} The court finds that the motion for reconsideration in this case indeed calls attention to an obvious error. Appellant's motion for reconsideration is granted. Upon reconsideration, the decision dated September 29, 2004 is hereby amended on page 19 to state as follows: "The Court finds that there were no reasonable grounds for this appeal." The motion is granted and the decision is amended.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 Ohio 5958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamrick-v-wellman-products-group-unpublished-decision-11-10-2004-ohioctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack