Opinion
No. 72-795
Decided February 7, 1973.
Appeal — Assignment of errors — All errors assigned and briefed to be passed upon by Court of Appeals in writing — App. R. 12(A) — Judgment reversed and remanded.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County.
Plaintiffs sued defendant for damages for injuries resulting from an automobile collision. After summary judgment was entered for plaintiffs on the question of liability, the case was tried to a jury on the issue of damages. Judgment was entered on the jury's verdict for plaintiffs.
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and filed his assignments of error and supporting brief, enumerating five alleged errors. Two of the errors assigned claimed prejudice in the court's instructions to the jury; one dealt with the court's rulings on the admission of evidence; one challenged the failure of the court to grant a mistrial; and one alleged the judgment to be both against the manifest weight of the evidence and contrary to law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, without stating, in writing, the reasons for its decision overruling the assigned errors.
Defendant then filed a "motion for clarification of decision," specifically requesting the Court of Appeals "to state the reasons in writing for the court's decision," pursuant to Rule 12 (A) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals overruled that motion, its memorandum opinion stating:
"Having found substantial justice to have been done, no error prejudicial to the party complaining, and the judgment not to be against the manifest weight of the evidence or contrary to law, each of the five assigned errors being overruled, we affirm the judgment appealed from. Motion for reconsideration is overruled. * * *."
Defendant proceeded to this court on a motion to certify the record, setting forth as one of his propositions of law the refusal of the Court of Appeals to state in writing its reasons for overruling his assignments of error.
Messrs. Graham Graham and Mr. Kenneth M. Mortimer, for appellees.
Messrs. Federico, Myers Enz and Mr. Stanley L. Myers, for appellant.
The merits of the controversy between plaintiffs and defendant are not now before this court.
App. R. 12(A) provides, in pertinent part: "* * * All errors assigned and briefed [in the Court of Appeals] shall be passed upon by the court in writing, stating the reasons for the court's decision."
Here, the Court of Appeals failed to comply with the provisions of App. R. 12(A), even after being specifically requested to state in writing its reasons for overruling appellant's assignments of error.
The motion to certify the record is, therefore, allowed.
Our jurisdiction in this case, however, may be limited by Section 2(B)(2)(d) of Article IV of the Constitution to "affirm, modify or reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals." For that reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for compliance with the provision of App. R. 12(A) that all errors assigned and briefed be passed upon by the Court of Appeals in writing, stating the reasons for that court's decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.