[Cite as Hillman v. Larrison, 2020-Ohio-5522.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Robert L. Hillman, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 No. 20AP-7 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 15CV-2664)

David Larrison, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 3, 2020 

 

Robert L. Hillman, pro se. 

Zach Klein, City Attorney, and Janet R. Hill Arbogast, for 

appellee. 

 

ON APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

BRUNNER, J. 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert L. Hillman, has filed an application seeking 

reconsideration of this Court's decision in Hillman v. Larrison, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-7, 

2020-Ohio-4896 ("Hillman V"). For the following reasons, we deny the application. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} App.R. 26(A) provides for the filing of an application for reconsideration. We 

have previously set forth the standard by which we evaluate applications for 

reconsideration under App.R. 26: 

" 'App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may 

prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an 

appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an 

unsupportable decision under the law.' " Corporex Develop. & 

Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 03AP-269, 

2004-Ohio-2715, ¶ 2, quoting State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 

334, 336, 678 N.E.2d 956 (11th Dist.1996). When presented 

with an application for reconsideration filed pursuant to 
No. 20AP-7 2 

App.R. 26, an appellate court must determine whether the 

application "calls to the attention of the court an obvious error 

in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was 

either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the 

court when it should have been." Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio 

App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (10th Dist.1987), syllabus. 

Importantly, an appellate court will not grant "[a]n application 

for reconsideration * * * just because a party disagrees with the 

logic or conclusions of the appellate court." Bae v. Dragoo & 

Assocs., Inc., 10th Dist. No. 03AP-254, 2004-Ohio-1297, ¶ 2. 

State v. Harris, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-1014, 2014-Ohio-672, ¶ 8. 

An application for reconsideration is not intended for cases in 

which a party simply disagrees with the reasoning and 

conclusions of the appellate court. Drs. Kristal & Forche, 

D.D.S., Inc. v. Erkis, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-06, 2009-Ohio-6478, 

¶ 2, citing State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336, 678 

N.E.2d 956 (11th Dist.1996). An application for 

reconsideration will be denied where the moving party "simply 

seeks to 'rehash the arguments' " presented in the initial 

appeal. Appenzeller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab & Corr., 10th Dist. 

No. 17AP-747, 2018-Ohio-1698, ¶ 4, quoting Garfield Hts. City 

School Dist. v. State Bd. of Edn., 85 Ohio App.3d 117, 127, 619 

N.E.2d 429 (10th Dist.1992). Thus, if an application for 

reconsideration does not raise an issue that either was not 

considered at all or was not fully considered, nor demonstrates 

the court made an obvious error or rendered a decision 

unsupportable under the law, it should not be disturbed. 

Harris at ¶ 8. 

Hal v. State Dept. of Edn., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-301, 2020-Ohio-204, ¶ 2. 

{¶ 3} In his application, Hillman raises neither an obvious error nor an issue this 

Court should have, but did not, fully consider. Rather, Hillman argues anew the same 

points that this Court fully considered in connection with rendering its merit decision. 

{¶ 4} Our decision in Hillman V addressed Hillman's single assignment of error 

that the trial court had denied him substantive due process and equal protection of the law 

when it refused to address his claim that court costs and filing fees were illegally imposed 

on him in the underlying matter and our determination that the trial court had not denied 

Hillman those rights. We found that the trial court's judgment entry did not impose any 

court costs (or filing fees) on Hillman, he was not adversely affected, and the issue of court 

costs was not properly before this Court. 
No. 20AP-7 3 

{¶ 5} Our decision also discussed our determination that Hillman's grievance lay 

with the Clerk of Courts, who is not a party to this action. Consequently, Hillman's 

allegations concerning fees was not something this Court could consider. 

{¶ 6} Hillman further asserts in his application that this Court, in deciding 

Hillman V, denied him due process when it struck the reply brief he filed after appellee filed 

a brief that erroneously indicated that Hillman V had been docketed to this Court's regular 

calendar. As Hillman acknowledges in his application for reconsideration, Hillman V was 

docketed to the accelerated calendar. Neither appellee's erroneous designation of "Regular 

Calendar" on its brief, nor this Court's typographical error on its decision rendered 

October 13, 2020 and judgment entry issued October 15, 2020, reassigned Hillman V from 

the accelerated calendar to the regular calendar. The rules applicable to appeals assigned 

to the accelerated docket apply to Hillman V, and Hillman's reply brief was therefore 

stricken, as it should have been. There is no obvious error or decision unsupportable under 

the law. Hal; Harris. Contrary to Hillman's assertion, this Court provided a full and fair 

review of his appeal under the applicable rules. 

{¶ 7} Hillman's disagreement with our review of the trial court's decision according 

to law or conclusions therefrom does not support his contention that we should reconsider 

our previous decision and his application is denied. 

Application for reconsideration denied. 

KLATT and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.