Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hadlock v. McMackin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 14, 1991No. 90-1919PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Appellee argues that appellant’s appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed in this court thirty-four days after it was filed in the court of appeals. Section 1(B), Rule I of Supreme Court Rules of Practice provides in part:

*434“A copy of that notice of appeal must be filed or offered for filing in the Supreme Court not later than thirty days after the filing of such notice in the Court of Appeals. * * * ”

The failure to comply with the thirty-day time limit in the rule renders the appeal subject to dismissal. See…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Durkin v. UngaroOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Bazell v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State ex rel. Justice v. McMackinOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hammond v. DallmanOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. Barnette v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  3. State ex rel. Robinson v. LaRose (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. State Ex Rel. Brady v. Russo, 89552 (6-22-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Robinson v. LaRoseOhio Court of Appeals · 2015

7 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