Sogg v. Goodman

949 N.E.2d 14, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1524
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 17, 2011
Docket2011-0328
StatusPublished

This text of 949 N.E.2d 14 (Sogg v. Goodman) 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
Sogg v. Goodman, 949 N.E.2d 14, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1524 (Ohio 2011).

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 10AP-358, 2011-Ohio-81. This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of appellant’s motion for reconsideration.

Upon review of the notice of appeal, memorandum in support of jurisdiction, and motion for reconsideration, it is evident that John R. Wylie, Charles R. Watkins, Arthur T. Susman, and Glenn L. Hara have not filed timely motions for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 1.2. Therefore, it is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that John R. Wylie, Charles R. Watkins, Arthur T. Susman, and Glenn L. Hara are stricken from the notice of appeal, memorandum in support of jurisdiction, and motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with S.CtPrac.R. 1.2 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(6)(a)(e).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
949 N.E.2d 14, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sogg-v-goodman-ohio-2011.