State v. Palider

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Palider

514 N.E.2d 873, 33 Ohio St. 3d 68, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 417

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 4, 1987

DocketNo. 87-574

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 514 N.E.2d 873 (State v. Palider) 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. Palider, 514 N.E.2d 873, 33 Ohio St. 3d 68, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 417 (Ohio 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause came before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment in case No. 12557 conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in State v. Compher (Mar. 19, 1986), Ross App. No. 1160, unreported, upon the following question:

“* * * [W]hether a jury demand pursuant to Crim. R. 23(A) is timely filed when it is filed not less than ten days before the actual trial, after continuance of the trial date, even though the jury demand was not filed at least ten days before the originally scheduled trial.”

[69]*69Upon review of this cause, this court determines that the certified case is not in conflict with State v. Compher, supra. It is therefore the order of this court, upon its own motion, that this cause be dismissed since no genuine conflict exists and this court declines to accept jurisdiction of the matter. Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Constitution; Coulson v. Coulson (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 12, 18-21, 5 OBR 73, 79-81, 448 N.E. 2d 809, 814-816 (William B. Brown and Locher, JJ., concurring in judgment only).

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

This cause came before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment in case No. 12557 conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in State v. Compher (Mar. 19, 1986), Ross App. No. 1160, unreported, upon the following question:

“* * * [W]hether a jury demand pursuant to Crim. R. 23(A) is timely filed when it is filed not less than ten days before the actual trial, after continuance of the trial date, even though the jury demand was not filed at least ten days before the originally scheduled trial.”

[69]*69Upon review of this cause, this court determines that the certified case is not in conflict with State v. Compher, supra. It is therefore the order of this court, upon its own motion, that this cause be dismissed since no genuine conflict exists and this court declines to accept jurisdiction of the matter. Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Constitution; Coulson v. Coulson (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 12, 18-21, 5 OBR 73, 79-81, 448 N.E. 2d 809, 814-816 (William B. Brown and Locher, JJ., concurring in judgment only).

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 N.E.2d 873, 33 Ohio St. 3d 68, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-palider-ohio-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack