Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Dickey

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 17, 1991No. CA90-03-019Published

1DissentJones, Presiding Judge

I dissent because the majority has misconstrued our decision in Ginocchio. In Ginocchio, we found that the record did not contain a judgment entry as required by State v. Tripodo (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 124, 4 O.O.3d 280, 363 N.E.2d 719. Instead, the record filed in the court of appeals simply contained a docket form, not labeled a “judgment,” and not bearing a time stamp or any other indication that such was entered on the court’s journal by the clerk. In Ginocchio, supra, 38 Ohio App.3d at 106, 526 N.E.2d at 1367-1368, we stated:

“Much to our dismay, this court has noted an increasing tendency…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. TripodoOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Davis v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API