In re T.M.

Ohio Supreme Court

In re T.M.

940 N.E.2d 984, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1530

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 2, 2011·No. 2010-2093·Published

Opinion

Lucas App. Nos. L-10-1245 and L-10-1246, 2010-Ohio-5506. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at pages 4-5 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Judgment filed November 8, 2010:

“Do the delayed appeal provisions of App.R. 5 extend to cases involving the termination of parental rights and privileges?”

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, J., dissent.

The conflict case is In re Westfall Children, Stark App. No. 2006 CA 00196, 2006-Ohio-6717.

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

Lucas App. Nos. L-10-1245 and L-10-1246, 2010-Ohio-5506. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at pages 4-5 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Judgment filed November 8, 2010:

“Do the delayed appeal provisions of App.R. 5 extend to cases involving the termination of parental rights and privileges?”

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, J., dissent.

The conflict case is In re Westfall Children, Stark App. No. 2006 CA 00196, 2006-Ohio-6717.

In re T.M., 940 N.E.2d 984, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1530 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

940 N.E.2d 984 (In re T.M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related