Case Title: Copeco, Inc. v. Caley

Citation: 1994-Ohio-36

Docket Number: 19930399

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Copeco, Inc., Appellee, v. Caley et al., Appellants.                             
[Cite as Copeco, Inc. v. Caley (1994),     Ohio St.3d    .]                      
Appellate procedure -- Supreme Court jurisdiction -- Actual                      
     conflict between appellate districts on rule of law must                    
     exist before certification of conflict is proper --                         
     Journal entry certifying conflict must clearly set forth                    
     rule of law upon which alleged conflict exists.                             
     (No. 93-399 -- Submitted March 23, 1994 -- Decided April                    
27, 1994.)                                                                       
     Certified by the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No.                     
CA-8776.                                                                         
                                                                                 
     Ronald G. Figler, for appellee.                                             
     Keith R. Hofer and Don E. Lombardi, for appellants.                         
                                                                                 
     This cause is before this court upon the certification of                   
the Court of Appeals for Stark County that its judgment                          
conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Summit                  
County in Prinz Office Equip. Co. v. Pesko (Jan. 31, 1990)                       
Summit App. No. 14155, unreported,     WL    .                                   
     Having examined Prinz Office Equip. Co. and the record in                   
the present cause, we find that the judgments do not conflict.                   
Furthermore, the court of appeals in certifying the case did                     
not clearly set forth the rule of law upon which the alleged                     
conflict exists.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.                          
Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613                    
N.E.2d 1032; Freeman v. Holzer Med. Ctr. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d                   
601, 613 N.E.2d 1037; State v. Parobek (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d                     
61, 550 N.E.2d 476; State v. Radar (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 112,                    
548 N.E.2d 210; Hays v. St. Elizabeth Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1988),                    
38 Ohio St.3d 60, 526 N.E.2d 307; Cook v. Mayfield (1988), 37                    
Ohio St.3d 44, 523 N.E.2d 502; State v. Palider (1987), 33 Ohio                  
St.3d 68, 514 N.E.2d 873.                                                        
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.