descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rolf v. Tri State Motor Transit Co.

Citations: 90 Ohio St. 3d 1477; 738 N.E.2d 1251; 2000 Ohio LEXIS 3005Docket: 00-1329

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; December 4, 2000; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The court addressed a certified question of state law from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The petitioner submitted a reply brief on November 29, 2000, which was due by November 20, 2000, thus rendering it untimely. Under S.Ct. Prac.R. XVIII and S.Ct. Prac.R. XIV(1)(C), the untimeliness of the reply brief led the court to strike it sua sponte.

Legal Issues Addressed

Sua Sponte Actions by the Court

Application: The court exercised its authority to act on its own initiative to strike an untimely filed reply brief.

Reasoning: Under S.Ct. Prac.R. XVIII and S.Ct. Prac.R. XIV(1)(C), the untimeliness of the reply brief led the court to strike it sua sponte.

Timeliness of Filings under Supreme Court Practice Rules

Application: The court applied the rules regarding the timeliness of filings to strike a reply brief that was submitted late.

Reasoning: The petitioner submitted a reply brief on November 29, 2000, which was due by November 20, 2000, thus rendering it untimely.