Per Curiam.
Appellant's first argument is that it was substantial error for the court of appeals to deny his motion for "notice for hearing and motion to revise and for judgment N.O.V." On appeal, he cites Civ.R. 54(B). In the actual motion, he cited Civ.R. (7)(B) and 50(B), as well as Civ.R. 54(B). None of these rules have application to this case. Civ.R. 7(B)(2) provides that:
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
