Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co.

738 N.E.2d 1251, 90 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 3005
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 91 Ohio St. 3d 380
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 5, 2000·No. 00-1329·Published

Opinion

Certified Question of State Law, No. 3:99CV7687. This cause came before the court on the certification of a state law question from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. On November 29, 2000, petitioner filed a reply brief that was due, under S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII, no later than November 20, 2000. Therefore, petitioner’s reply brief is untimely and prohibited by S.CtPrae.R. XIV(1)(C). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that petitioner’s reply brief be, and hereby is, stricken.

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

Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co., 738 N.E.2d 1251, 90 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 3005 (Ohio 2000).

738 N.E.2d 1251 (Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.