Workman v. Franklin Cty.

Ohio Supreme Court

Workman v. Franklin Cty.

764 N.E.2d 443, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1498, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 664

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 2002

Docket01-1813

StatusPublished

This text of 764 N.E.2d 443 (Workman v. Franklin Cty.) 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

Workman v. Franklin Cty., 764 N.E.2d 443, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1498, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 664 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Franklin App. No. OOAP-1449. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. On October 12, 2001, appellants filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellants have neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B), nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellants show cause, within ten days of the date of this entry, why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 111(6).

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

Franklin App. No. OOAP-1449. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. On October 12, 2001, appellants filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellants have neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B), nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellants show cause, within ten days of the date of this entry, why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 111(6).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 N.E.2d 443, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1498, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/workman-v-franklin-cty-ohio-2002.