Smith v. Spicer

Ohio Supreme Court

Smith v. Spicer

670 N.E.2d 478, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1403, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2045

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 3, 1996

Docket96-1528

StatusPublished

This text of 670 N.E.2d 478 (Smith v. Spicer) 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

Smith v. Spicer, 670 N.E.2d 478, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1403, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2045 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In Mandamus. On October 1, 1996, relator filed a document titled “Objection to entry, a demand to annul the judgment, objections to dismissal, a demand that this case not be dismissed and a demand that the judge uphold his oath of office.” Relator’s document is, in substance, a motion for reconsideration that was untimely filed. Whereas S.CtPrae.R. XI(2)(C) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration that is not timely,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the document be, and hereby is, stricken.

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

In Mandamus. On October 1, 1996, relator filed a document titled “Objection to entry, a demand to annul the judgment, objections to dismissal, a demand that this case not be dismissed and a demand that the judge uphold his oath of office.” Relator’s document is, in substance, a motion for reconsideration that was untimely filed. Whereas S.CtPrae.R. XI(2)(C) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration that is not timely,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the document be, and hereby is, stricken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 N.E.2d 478, 77 Ohio St. 3d 1403, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-spicer-ohio-1996.