Cochran v. Presbyterian Church of Bloomingdale
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Cochran v. Presbyterian Church of Bloomingdale, 2016-Ohio-8551.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT LESLIE COCHRAN, et al. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS V. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BLOOMINGDALE, et al. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 15 JE 0011 OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration JUDGMENT: Denied. APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellants For Defendants-Appellees Attorney James A. Villanova Villanova Law Offices 16 Chatham Square Pittsburgh, PA 15219 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 Dated: December 27, 2016 [Cite as Cochran v. Presbyterian Church of Bloomingdale, 2016-Ohio-8551.] 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.
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.
