Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 2002-Ohio-6364.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY Perrysburg Township Court of Appeals No. WD-02-010 WD-02-011 Appellant Trial Court No. 01-CV-321 01-CV-322 v. City of Rossford, et al.* DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellees Decided: November 14, 2002 and Perrysburg Township Appellant v. Rossford Arena Amphitheater Authority Appellee * * * * * {¶1} This matter is before the court on the application of appellant, Perrysburg Township, for reconsideration of our decision in Perrysburg Twp. Rossford Amphitheater Authority (Oct. 11, 2002), 6th Dist. App. No. WD-02-011. Mayor Mark Zuchowski, filed Appellees, the city of Rossford and a memorandum in opposition to appellant's application, appellant filed a motion for leave to reply to the memorandum in opposition or to present oral argument, and, finally, appellees filed a memorandum in opposition to appellant's motion for leave to reply or for oral argument. {¶2} Our consideration of appellant's motion is governed by the standard set forth in Matthews v. Matthews (1981), 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 143: {¶3} "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. (App.R. 26, construed)" See, also, In re: Testamentary Trust of Hamm (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 683; Columbus v. Hodge (1987) 37 Ohio App.3d 68. {¶4} use in An application for reconsideration is not designed for instances where a party simply disagrees with the conclusions reached and the logic used by an appellate court. State v. Owens (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336. Instead, App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent a miscarriage of justice. {¶5} Id. Upon a complete review of appellant's application for reconsideration, this court finds that appellant either waived the issues raised or failed to raise any issues that have not been thoroughly considered by this court in the original appeal. For these reasons, appellant's application for reconsideration is found * For the earlier opinion, see 2002-Ohio-5498. 2. not well-taken. The motion for leave to reply or to present oral argument is rendered moot by this denial. {¶6} However, appellant does point out a typographical error in our decision. Accordingly, we issue, sua sponte, the following errata. {¶7} The first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 9 of our decision is changed to read: {¶8} "In addition, appellant's Assignment of Error No. II in Action 1 as to Mark Zuchowski is found not well-taken." {¶9} The last sentence of that same paragraph is modified as follows: {¶10} "Therefore, Counts 1-6 of Action 1 fail to set forth claims against Zuchowski upon which relief can be granted." {¶11} It is so ordered. Peter M. Handwork, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Melvin L. Resnick, J. James R. Sherck, J. CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE ____________________________ JUDGE 3.
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.
