From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

COX v. WEINLE

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County
Mar 5, 2003
Appeal No. C-020505, Trial No. 02CV-08496 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2003)

Opinion

Appeal No. C-020505, Trial No. 02CV-08496.

March 5, 2003.


JUDGMENT ENTRY.

{¶ 1} This appeal is considered on the accelerated calendar under App. R. 11.1(E) and Loc. R. 12, and this Judgment Entry shall not be considered an Opinion of the Court pursuant to S.Ct. R.Rep.Op. 3.

{¶ 2} Defendant-appellant Mike Weinle appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court adopting the decision of the small-claims magistrate in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Ronald and Lisa Cox on their claim for damages for the cost of a replacement automobile engine. Weinle, appearing pro se before this court, argues that the magistrate's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence in that the magistrate "did not have legal grounds to value and award one disputed [car part] at $1,200.00 [where] [t]he entire value of the [used car was] $1,200.00."

{¶ 3} Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error by reference to matters in the record. In this case, Weinle has not met his burden by failing to supply a transcript of the lower court's proceedings. When portions of the record necessary for resolution of an assigned error are omitted from the record, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below. In any event, the magistrate's decision is well reasoned and refers to specific items of evidence. Therefore, even had Weinle submitted a transcript of the proceedings below, it would be unlikely that we would find reversible error.

See App. R. 9 and 10(A).

See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384, citing State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 162, 372 N.E.2d 1355.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

{¶ 5} Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App. R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App. R. 24.

Sundermann, P.J., Painter and Winkler, JJ.


Summaries of

COX v. WEINLE

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County
Mar 5, 2003
Appeal No. C-020505, Trial No. 02CV-08496 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2003)
Case details for

COX v. WEINLE

Case Details

Full title:RONALD AND LISA COX, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MIKE WEINLE, d.b.a. DICK…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County

Date published: Mar 5, 2003

Citations

Appeal No. C-020505, Trial No. 02CV-08496 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2003)