From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ross v. Harden

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Sep 16, 1982
455 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

No. 82AP-466

Decided September 16, 1982.

Appellate procedure — Notice of appeal — Time for filing — App. R. 14(C) not applicable.

O.Jur 3d Appellate Review § 199.

The time for filing the notice of appeal pursuant to App. R. 4 begins running after the entry of judgment or the filing of the first notice of appeal and not after the date of service by mail upon another party.

APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Mr. Richard Colby, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Mr. David L. Day and Mr. Richard E. Quinby, for appellant Donald Early.

Mr. Bernard M. Floetker and Mr. Edwin L. Malek, for appellant John Harden.

Messrs. Graham, Dutro Nemeth and Mr. H.C. Dutro, Jr., for defendant-appellee Globe American Cas. Ins. Co.

Mr. Joseph W. Schilder, for defendant-appellee Motors Insurance Co.


This matter comes before this court on a motion by third-party defendant-appellee, Globe American Casualty Insurance Company, wherein it seeks to dismiss third-party defendant-appellant, John Harden, on the grounds that he did not file a timely notice of appeal or a timely brief.

The record indicates that a judgment entry was filed on May 5, 1982. Third-party defendant-appellant, Donald Early, filed his notice of appeal on May 28, 1982. Harden filed his notice of appeal on June 10, 1982.

Harden contends that, pursuant to App. R. 14(C), he is allowed an extra three days to file his notice of appeal. We disagree. App. R. 4 mandates the filing of the notice of appeal withing thirty days of the judgment entry or within ten days of the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed. The filing requirements regarding the notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. The time for filing the notice begins running after the entry of judgment or the filing of the first notice of appeal and not after the date of service by mail upon another party. Furthermore, App. R. 14(B) specifically states that no court may enlarge or reduce the time for filing a notice of appeal.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

Motion to dismiss sustained.

WHITESIDE, P.J., and NORRIS, J., concur.


Summaries of

Ross v. Harden

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Sep 16, 1982
455 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Ross v. Harden

Case Details

Full title:ROSS ET AL., APPELLEES, v. HARDEN ET AL., APPELLANTS

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Sep 16, 1982

Citations

455 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)
455 N.E.2d 1313

Citing Cases

Rundle v. Rundle

This time requirement is jurisdictional and may not be extended. Ditmars v. Ditmars (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d…

Wright v. Dewitt

The filing of a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See, generally, State v. Fisher (1975), 46 Ohio…