Martin v. Roeder

665 N.E.2d 196, 75 Ohio St. 3d 603
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1996·No. No. 96-399·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals correctly concluded that Civ.R. 60(B) is clearly inapplicable to review the court’s judgment on appeal. Civ.R. 1(C)(1). The Rules of Appellate Procedure govern appeals from trial courts of record to courts of appeals in Ohio. App.R. 1(A); Pegan v. Crawmer (1996), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608, 653 N.E.2d 659, 660; see, generally, McCormac, Ohio Civil Rules Practice (2 Ed.1992) 5, Section 1.05 (Civil Rules have no application to procedure in courts of appeals to review any judgment, order, or ruling, since the Appellate Rules set forth the applicable procedure).

In addition, under the Appellate Rules, application for reconsideration of any judgment submitted on appeal must be filed within ten days after filing of the judgment or announcement of the court’s decision, whichever is later. App.R. 26(A). Therefore, even if Martin’s motion could have been construed as an application for reconsideration, it would have been untimely.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Martin v. Roeder, 665 N.E.2d 196, 75 Ohio St. 3d 603 (Ohio 1996).

665 N.E.2d 196 (Martin v. Roeder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lane v. U.S. Bank N.A.
2024 Ohio 4884 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Schwind v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2022 Ohio 3995 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. McClendon
2013 Ohio 5881 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Rutushin v. Arditi
2013 Ohio 2167 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Knox
2011 Ohio 421 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Martin v. Roeder
1996 Ohio 451 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)