Legal Opinion

State v. Davis

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1999No. 99-252PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “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 journaliza*214tion of the appellate judgment.’ ” State v. Wickline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053.

However, as the court of appeals noted, “[njeither the [Sjupreme [Cjourt’s decision in State v. Murnahan, * * * nor App.R. 26(B) [was] available to allow” the filing of such applications for reopening at the time of the court of appeals decisions on May 27,1986 and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. ReddickOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. LentzOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. FoxOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State v. WicklineOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. State v. GummOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. George T. Franklin, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
  4. Van Hook v. AndersonDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2001
  5. State v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

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