Lang v. Hamilton Cty. Recorder

Ohio Supreme Court

Lang v. Hamilton Cty. Recorder

709 N.E.2d 173, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1468, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 1403

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 28, 1999

Docket99-503

StatusPublished

This text of 709 N.E.2d 173 (Lang v. Hamilton Cty. Recorder) 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

Lang v. Hamilton Cty. Recorder, 709 N.E.2d 173, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1468, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 1403 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Hamilton App. No. C-980891. On March 17, 1999, appellant filed a notice of appeal in which he asserted that this case originated in the court of appeals and therefore is an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(1). In accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. V(3), the Clerk of the Supreme Court issued an order for transmittal of the record from the court of appeals. The record was filed on March 24,1999. Upon review of the record,

It is determined by the court that this case did not originate in the court of appeals but is instead a discretionary appeal and/or claimed appeal of right as defined by S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(2) and (1)(A)(3). Whereas appellant did not file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction required to perfect [1469]*1469such an appeal in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this case be, and hereby is, dismissed.

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

Hamilton App. No. C-980891. On March 17, 1999, appellant filed a notice of appeal in which he asserted that this case originated in the court of appeals and therefore is an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(1). In accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. V(3), the Clerk of the Supreme Court issued an order for transmittal of the record from the court of appeals. The record was filed on March 24,1999. Upon review of the record,

It is determined by the court that this case did not originate in the court of appeals but is instead a discretionary appeal and/or claimed appeal of right as defined by S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(2) and (1)(A)(3). Whereas appellant did not file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction required to perfect [1469]*1469such an appeal in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this case be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 N.E.2d 173, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1468, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 1403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-hamilton-cty-recorder-ohio-1999.