Lamar v. Marbury
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The brief of appellant fails to set forth a proposition of law as required by Section 1(D), Rule V of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, but does contain an “assignment of error” to which we confine our review. The assignment of error reads as follows: “The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court’s ruling allowing the appeal and trial de novo pursuant to an oral motion under Civil Rule 60 B is an appealable order.”
In support, appellant argues a reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals essentially upon the basis that it must be assumed from the record that an…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Blosser v. CarterOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Kahler v. EytchesonOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. BooherOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Shirley v. Kruse, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- Boston v. DaughertyOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.