State ex rel. Richard v. Calabrese
610 N.E.2d 1002, 66 Ohio St. 3d 193, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 835
Opinion
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. On appeal to this court, appellant argues that the court of appeals abused its discretion and that C.P.Sup.R. 6, which inter alia requires motions outstanding for more than one hundred twenty days to be reported to this court, gives him a right to have his motion for default judgment in the underlying case ruled on within one hundred twenty days. We hold that C.P.Sup.R. 6 creates no rights in litigants.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State ex rel. Richard v. Calabrese, 610 N.E.2d 1002, 66 Ohio St. 3d 193, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 835 (Ohio 1993).
610 N.E.2d 1002 (State ex rel. Richard v. Calabrese) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Strauss v. Celebrezze, 92167 (3-16-2009)
2009 Ohio 1257 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
State Ex. Rel. Newman v. Gretick
803 N.E.2d 833 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
State Ex. Rel. Newman v. Gretick, Unpublished Decision (1-12-2004)
2004 Ohio 222 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
State v. Doneghy, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2000)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000
State v. Colon, Unpublished Decision (2-12-1999)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999