Opinion
CASE NO. 15 JE 0011
12-27-2016
LESLIE COCHRAN, et al. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS v. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BLOOMINGDALE, et al. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellants Attorney James A. Villanova Villanova Law Offices 16 Chatham Square Pittsburgh, PA 15219 For Defendants-Appellees Attorney Gregory A. Beck Attorney Tonya J. Rogers Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Matthews 400 South Main Street North Canton, Ohio 44720
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration JUDGMENT: Denied. APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs-Appellants Attorney James A. Villanova
Villanova Law Offices
16 Chatham Square
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 For Defendants-Appellees Attorney Gregory A. Beck
Attorney Tonya J. Rogers
Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Matthews
400 South Main Street
North Canton, Ohio 44720 JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro
Hon. Gene Donoforio
Hon. Cheryl L. Waite PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Leslie Cochran, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, filed a motion for reconsideration in the appeal of Cochran, et al., v. Presbyterian Church of Bloomingdale, 7th Dist. No. 15 JE 0111, 2016-Ohio-7020.
{¶2} "The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion 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." City of Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (10th Dist.1987), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶3} The purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue one's appeal based on dissatisfaction with the logic used and conclusions reached by an appellate court. Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. No. 04 MA 0245, 2005-Ohio-3828, ¶ 2. "An application for reconsideration may not be filed simply on the basis that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court decision." Hampton v. Ahmed, 7th Dist. No. 02 BE 0066, 2005-Ohio-1766, ¶ 16 (internal citation omitted). Nor is it "a mechanism to raise an entirely new argument and issue to the appellate court that was not raised in the appellate brief." State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. No. 14 MA 0115, 2015-Ohio-2095, ¶ 9.
{¶4} In support of reconsideration, the Cochrans argue that this Court failed to consider the evidence regarding the location of the headstone and the testimony of Robert T. Stevens. This Court fully considered the entire trial record when deciding this appeal. The Cochrans do not call to our attention an obvious error, but merely proffer a disagreement with the format of the opinion and decision reached by the Court. Accordingly, the Cochrans' motion for reconsideration is denied. DeGenaro, J., concurs. Donofrio, P.J., concurs. Waite, J., concurs.