Portage Cty. Reg. Plan. v. City of Kent, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2004)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Portage Cty. Reg. Plan. v. City of Kent, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2004)

2004 Ohio 1725

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2004

DocketCase No. 2003-P-0106.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2004 Ohio 1725 (Portage Cty. Reg. Plan. v. City of Kent, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Portage Cty. Reg. Plan. v. City of Kent, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2004), 2004 Ohio 1725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On September 29, 2003, appellant, Portage County Regional Planning Commission, filed a notice of appeal from a September 2, 2003 judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. On November 14, 2003, appellant filed a motion to remand this case to the trial court to conduct a hearing previously scheduled for November 24, 2003. The alleged purpose of the hearing was to clarify the September 2, 2003 judgment. On November 21, 2003, this court granted appellant's motion to remand for a period of twenty days.

{¶ 2} On December 10, 2003, appellant filed a motion to extend the remand to the trial court. It is apparent that on November 24, 2003, the trial court magistrate conducted a status conference at which time it was determined that additional evidence would be required in order to make a decision. The magistrate stated, "additional summary judgment proceedings and/or a trial will be necessary."

{¶ 3} On December 23, 2003, counsel for appellant admitted to this court in a telephone conversation that, in her opinion, there has yet to be issued a final appealable order in this case. We agree. All judgments entered by the trial court up until this point in time have been interlocutory in nature. This court will not have jurisdiction until a final appealable order is issued.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, this appeal is hereby, sua sponte, dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

{¶ 5} The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Ford, P.J., and Rice, J., concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On September 29, 2003, appellant, Portage County Regional Planning Commission, filed a notice of appeal from a September 2, 2003 judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. On November 14, 2003, appellant filed a motion to remand this case to the trial court to conduct a hearing previously scheduled for November 24, 2003. The alleged purpose of the hearing was to clarify the September 2, 2003 judgment. On November 21, 2003, this court granted appellant's motion to remand for a period of twenty days.