Legal Opinion

State v. Wickline

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1996No. 95-690PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Per curiam

Under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening requires “a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.” Here, the appellate judgment was journalized on December 20,1988, but the appellant did not file his application for reopening until November 14, 1994. Thus, Wickline was required to show good cause for the delay.

Wickline seeks to excuse his late filing on the grounds that App.R. 26(B) did not exist at the time the appellate judgment was journalized. However, in State v. Reddick (1995),…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. State v. GarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State v. WebbOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State v. ReddickOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. State v. RushOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Van Hook v. AndersonDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2001
  3. State v. FoxOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. RushOhio Supreme Court · 1998

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API