State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook

127 Ohio St. 3d 1528

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 2, 2011

Docket2010-1696

StatusPublished

This text of 127 Ohio St. 3d 1528 (State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook) 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

State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1528 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 10AP-552. This cause is pending as an appeal from an order denying a motion for a show-cause contempt order in a pending procedendo case.

Upon consideration, this cause is dismissed because the order appealed from is not a final, appealable order. See R.C. 2505.02; State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 107 Ohio St.3d 387, 2006-Ohio-8, 839 N.E.2d 911, ¶ 17 (“R.C. 2505.03 restricts the appellate jurisdiction of this court to review of final orders, judgments, or decrees”). The order was made against a non-party in a case in which a final judgment had not yet been entered. See Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 520 N.E.2d 1362, syllabus (“There is no right of appeal from the dismissal of a contempt motion when the party making the motion is not prejudiced by the dismissal”). Appellant can raise his claims in an appeal from the final judgment entered in his procedendo action.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Franklin App. No. 10AP-552. This cause is pending as an appeal from an order denying a motion for a show-cause contempt order in a pending procedendo case.

Upon consideration, this cause is dismissed because the order appealed from is not a final, appealable order. See R.C. 2505.02; State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 107 Ohio St.3d 387, 2006-Ohio-8, 839 N.E.2d 911, ¶ 17 (“R.C. 2505.03 restricts the appellate jurisdiction of this court to review of final orders, judgments, or decrees”). The order was made against a non-party in a case in which a final judgment had not yet been entered. See Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 520 N.E.2d 1362, syllabus (“There is no right of appeal from the dismissal of a contempt motion when the party making the motion is not prejudiced by the dismissal”). Appellant can raise his claims in an appeal from the final judgment entered in his procedendo action.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Ohio St. 3d 1528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hillman-v-holbrook-ohio-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack