From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Ohio
Nov 22, 2011
2011 Ohio 6027 (Ohio 2011)

Opinion

2011-1882

11-22-2011

State v. Roberts


MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

Guernsey App. No. 10CA000047, 2011-Ohio-4969. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right.

Upon review of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Sharon Katz as counsel for amicus curiae, The Innocence Network, it appears that Sharon Katz did not comply with Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(6)(e), which requires an attorney seeking pro hac vice admission to provide the name and attorney registration number of an active Ohio attorney, in good standing, who has agreed to associate with the out-of-state attorney. It is ordered by the court that Sharon Katz shall file an amended motion for admission pro hac vice that fully complies with Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(6)(a) through (e) within ten days of the date of this entry.

Upon review of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction of amicus curiae, The Innocence Network, it is evident that Julia Nestor and David C. Newman have not timely filed motions for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.Ct.Prac. R. 1.2. Therefore, it is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that Julia Nestor and David C. Newman are stricken from the memorandum in support of jurisdiction of amicus curiae, The Innocence Network, for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 1.2 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(6)(a) through (e). In accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 1.2(C), Julia Nestor and David C. Newman shall not file an amended motion for admission pro hac vice.


Summaries of

State v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Ohio
Nov 22, 2011
2011 Ohio 6027 (Ohio 2011)
Case details for

State v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:State v. Roberts

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Nov 22, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 6027 (Ohio 2011)