From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Mentor, v. Babul

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District
Jul 16, 1999
No. 98-L-244 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 16, 1999)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds is not a final, appealable order, but noting “the very persuasive argument that can be made in support of the immediate exercise of appellate jurisdiction” because of “the unique nature” of the motion

Summary of this case from State v. Anderson
See 1 Summary

Opinion

No. 98-L-244.

July 16, 1999.

Appeal dismissed.

O'Neill, J., dissents. See Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Entry. [CHRISTLEY] (NADER) (O'NEILL)

APPELLATE REVIEW:

Under the current version of R.C. 2505.02, the denial of a motion to dismiss predicated on the Double Jeopardy Clause does not fall within the ambit of the statute, including the provisional remedy category embodied by R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Accordingly, the denial of such a motion is not a final appealable order.

Summaries of

City of Mentor, v. Babul

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District
Jul 16, 1999
No. 98-L-244 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 16, 1999)

holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds is not a final, appealable order, but noting “the very persuasive argument that can be made in support of the immediate exercise of appellate jurisdiction” because of “the unique nature” of the motion

Summary of this case from State v. Anderson
Case details for

City of Mentor, v. Babul

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF MENTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CARLOS v. BABUL, Defendant-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District

Date published: Jul 16, 1999

Citations

No. 98-L-244 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 16, 1999)

Citing Cases

State v. Anderson

For instance, if the trial court grants the motion to dismiss, then the adjudication of the motion may be…

State v. Anderson

{¶ 38} Our decision in Crago has been questioned by members of this court and the appellate courts.…

4 Citing Cases