Smock v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Smock v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003)

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketC.A. No. 02CA008075.

StatusUnpublished

This text of Smock v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003) (Smock v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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

Smock v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003), (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY {¶ 1} Appellant has moved this Court to reconsider our decision and journal entry, which was journalized on January 9, 2003. Appellee has responded in opposition.

{¶ 2} In determining whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, a court of appeals must review the motion to see if it calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or if it raises issues not considered properly by the court. Garfield Hts.City School Dist. v. State Bd. Of Edn. (1992), 85 Ohio App.3d 117. Appellant has argued that the decision should be reconsidered because this Court failed to consider evidence that was properly in the record in deciding the appeal.

{¶ 3} Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The decision and journal entry in C.A. No. 02CA008075 that was journalized on January 9, 2003, is hereby vacated. This Court will issue its determination on the merits of this appeal by a subsequent decision and journal entry.

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

JOURNAL ENTRY {¶ 1} Appellant has moved this Court to reconsider our decision and journal entry, which was journalized on January 9, 2003. Appellee has responded in opposition.

{¶ 2} In determining whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, a court of appeals must review the motion to see if it calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or if it raises issues not considered properly by the court. Garfield Hts.City School Dist. v. State Bd. Of Edn. (1992), 85 Ohio App.3d 117. Appellant has argued that the decision should be reconsidered because this Court failed to consider evidence that was properly in the record in deciding the appeal.

{¶ 3} Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The decision and journal entry in C.A. No. 02CA008075 that was journalized on January 9, 2003, is hereby vacated. This Court will issue its determination on the merits of this appeal by a subsequent decision and journal entry.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smock v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Unpublished Decision (2-19-2003), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smock-v-bob-evans-farms-inc-unpublished-decision-2-19-2003-ohioctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack