In re Sherrills

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Sherrills

741 N.E.2d 145, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1420, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 227

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 741 N.E.2d 145 (In re Sherrills) 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

In re Sherrills, 741 N.E.2d 145, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1420, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 227 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

On November 12, 1996, we ordered that the Clerk of this court shall not accept for filing any additional, original actions from Daries Sherrills, unless accompanied by the docket fee and security deposit required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV. Sherrills v. Fuerst (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1437, 671 N.E.2d 1021.

Based on Sherrills’s continued, prolonged pattern of filing repetitious, frivolous appeals in this court and abusing his informa pauperis status in this court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the court that the Clerk of this court shall also not accept for filing any further appeals in this court without Sherrills’s prepaying the fee required by S.Ct.Prae.R. XV, except for direct or delayed appeals from criminal convictions and sentences. Cf., generally, Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals (1992), 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305; Demos v. Storrie (1993), 507 U.S. 290, 113 S.Ct 1231, 122 L.Ed.2d 636; In re Guess (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 N.E.2d 684. Courts of appeals and trial courts may take similar action to prevent further frivolous filings by Sherrills.

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

On November 12, 1996, we ordered that the Clerk of this court shall not accept for filing any additional, original actions from Daries Sherrills, unless accompanied by the docket fee and security deposit required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV. Sherrills v. Fuerst (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1437, 671 N.E.2d 1021.

Based on Sherrills’s continued, prolonged pattern of filing repetitious, frivolous appeals in this court and abusing his informa pauperis status in this court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the court that the Clerk of this court shall also not accept for filing any further appeals in this court without Sherrills’s prepaying the fee required by S.Ct.Prae.R. XV, except for direct or delayed appeals from criminal convictions and sentences. Cf., generally, Martin v. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals (1992), 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305; Demos v. Storrie (1993), 507 U.S. 290, 113 S.Ct 1231, 122 L.Ed.2d 636; In re Guess (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 N.E.2d 684. Courts of appeals and trial courts may take similar action to prevent further frivolous filings by Sherrills.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 N.E.2d 145, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1420, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sherrills-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack