Narrative Opinion Summary
In the appellate case of Richard Rose v. Ohio Savings Bank, the appellant faced procedural challenges due to delays in filing necessary documents. Initially, the appellate record was due on July 4, 2012, but was delayed until January 24, 2013, because of non-payment issues. Subsequently, the appellant failed to meet the February 25, 2013, deadline for filing his brief. Despite multiple notifications and a granted extension to April 19, 2013, the appellant neither filed a supplemental record nor submitted the brief. The court issued a final notice on May 6, 2013, warning of potential dismissal if no brief was received by May 16, 2013. With no compliance, the court, led by Judge Jane Bland, dismissed the appeal on July 19, 2013, for want of prosecution, underscoring the importance of adhering to appellate procedural deadlines and the consequences of failing to do so.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consequences of Failing to File Briefssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was warned multiple times about the dismissal of the appeal for failing to file the brief within the stipulated timeframe.
Reasoning: The court notified the appellant on May 6, 2013, of the potential dismissal of the appeal for failure to file a timely brief, requiring a response by May 16, 2013, which was not received.
Deadline for Filing Appellate Briefssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that the deadline for filing the appellant's brief is not extended by requests for supplemental records.
Reasoning: The court clarified that such requests do not extend the deadline for filing the appellant's brief, which was set for February 25, 2013.
Dismissal for Want of Prosecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ultimately ordered the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to file the brief.
Reasoning: The appellant was ordered to file his brief within 10 days, with a warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
Extensions for Filing Briefssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was granted an extension to file his brief due to issues with payment for the supplemental record.
Reasoning: On April 1, 2013, the appellant filed a motion for extension until April 19, 2013, citing non-payment for the supplemental record but indicating payment would occur shortly. This motion was granted.