Legal Opinion

Pegan v. Crawmer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1995No. 94-2373PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Per curiam

We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals for the following reasons.

App.R. 1(A) states:

“These rules govern procedure in appeals to courts of appeals from the trial courts of record in Ohio.” (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, App.R. 13(D) could not have been applicable to this original action in the court of appeals.

Appellant urges that the clerk should have been required to serve copies of the petition with summons under Civ.R. 4(A). However, Civ.R. 1(A) states in part:

“These rules prescribe the procedure to be followed in all courts of this state in the exercise of civil jurisdiction at law…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hammond v. DallmanOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Harshaw v. FarrellOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. In Re Habeas Corpus for TerryOhio Court of Appeals · 1988

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Chari v. VoreOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Chari v. VoreOhio Supreme Court · 2001

46 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