State v. Cooey

792 N.E.2d 194, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1505

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Cooey. Read the opinion of the Court — 99 Ohio St. 3d 345 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 18, 2003·No. 1988-0351·Published

Opinion

Summit App. No. CA12943. Upon consideration of appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a pro se motion to suspend S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(2)(A)(1) and appellant’s pro se motion to suspend S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(2)(A)(1),

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and hereby are, denied.

Moyer, C.J. and O’Donnell, J., dissent. O’Connor, J., not participating.

Upon consideration of appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a pro se motion for stay of execution and appellant’s pro se motion for stay of execution,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and hereby are, denied.

Moyer, C.J, and O’Donnell, J., would grant the motion for leave to file. O’Connor, J., not participating.

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

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and hereby are, denied.

Moyer, C.J. and O’Donnell, J., dissent. O’Connor, J., not participating.

Upon consideration of appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a pro se motion for stay of execution and appellant’s pro se motion for stay of execution,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and hereby are, denied.

Moyer, C.J, and O’Donnell, J., would grant the motion for leave to file. O’Connor, J., not participating.

State v. Cooey, 792 N.E.2d 194, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1505 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

792 N.E.2d 194 (State v. Cooey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.