State v. Harman

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Harman

708 N.E.2d 724, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1451, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 909

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 13, 1999

Docket99-529

StatusPublished

This text of 708 N.E.2d 724 (State v. Harman) 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 v. Harman, 708 N.E.2d 724, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1451, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 909 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoning App. No. 96CA70. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On March 22, 1999, appellant filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that exceeds the page limitation prescribed by S.Ct.Prac.R. III(1)(C). Whereas appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with S.Ct.Prac.R. Ill within the time for perfecting his appeal, and whereas, pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. II(2)(A)(1), appellant’s failure to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within the prescribed time period divests this court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed, effective April 13,1999.

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

Mahoning App. No. 96CA70. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On March 22, 1999, appellant filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that exceeds the page limitation prescribed by S.Ct.Prac.R. III(1)(C). Whereas appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction in compliance with S.Ct.Prac.R. Ill within the time for perfecting his appeal, and whereas, pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. II(2)(A)(1), appellant’s failure to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within the prescribed time period divests this court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed, effective April 13,1999.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 N.E.2d 724, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1451, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harman-ohio-1999.