Keyerleber v. Keyerleber, Unpublished Decision (1-7-2005)
Opinion
{¶ 2} On October 10, 2004, this court issued a judgment entry ordering appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed due to lack of a final appealable order. Specifically, this court noted that temporary custody orders are interlocutory in nature and generally not final and appealable. Brooks v. Brooks (1996),
{¶ 3} On October 20, 2004, appellant filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction. Appellee responded by filing an objection to the memorandum in support of jurisdiction.
{¶ 4} Appellant asserts that this is a final appealable order pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} The proper analysis was set forth by the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Brooks, supra. Appellant has failed to bring to this court's attention any reason not to follow the Brooks decision. An interlocutory or temporary order is simply not a final appealable order.
{¶ 6} Accordingly, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed.
{¶ 7} Appeal dismissed.
Ford, P.J., O'Neill, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2005 Ohio 60 (Keyerleber v. Keyerleber, Unpublished Decision (1-7-2005)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.