Rice v. Rice
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Rice v. Rice, 2002-Ohio-5032.] STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT AMANDA J. RICE, ADMINISTRATRIX ) OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. RICE, ) DECEASED ) ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ) ) VS. ) ) ROLAND F. RICE, ET AL. ) ) DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ) CASE NO. 2001-CO-28 OPINION AND JOURNAL ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appellee s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to App.R. 26(A). Case No. 2000-CV-216 JUDGMENT: Dismissed. APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Attorney David P. Powers Stacey, Hutson, Stacey & Powers 20 South Main Street Columbiana, Ohio 44408 For Defendant-Appellant: Attorney. Milton A. Hayman 700 Bank One Building Steubenville, Ohio 43952 JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Dated: September 18, 2002 [Cite as Rice v. Rice, 2002-Ohio-5032.] PER CURIAM. {¶1} Appellee Amanda J. Rice, administratrix of the estate of James M. Rice, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of our Opinion issued on June 26, 2002. Appellee s motion was filed on July 10, 2002. App.R. 26(A) requires that all motions for reconsideration be filed, before the judgment or order of the court has been approved by the court and filed by the court with the clerk for journalization or within ten days after the announcement of the court's decision, whichever is the later. Appellee s motion has not been filed within the time frame set by App.R. 26(A). {¶2} App.R. 14(B) allows us to extend the time for filing a motion for reconsideration, but only, on a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Appellee s counsel stated that the motion was filed late because counsel was on vacation. This is not the type of extraordinary circumstance envisioned by App.R. 26(A). We may also enlarge the ten-day time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration if the motion raises an issue of sufficient importance to warrant an exception to rule. State v. Boone (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 275, 277, 683 N.E.2d 67. Appellee s motion appears to challenge our interpretation of the facts of this case, which is not a sufficiently important issue to grant an exception to the time limits of App.R. 26(A). Therefore, this motion for reconsideration is dismissed. Waite, J., concurs. Vukovich, P.J., dissents. Donofrio, J., concurs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
