IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS ) Case No BOARD OF EDUCATION, Original Action in Mandamus and Relator,
|
|
- Junior Casey
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS ) Case No BOARD OF EDUCATION, Original Action in Mandamus and Relator, Prohibition Arising From Cuyahoga County Common Pleas vs. Court Case No JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM D. MASON, Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County, Ohio CHARLES E. HANNAN * ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney * Counsel ofrecord The Justice Center, Courts Tower, 8"' Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Tel: (216) /Fax: (216) P4CEH&cuvahogacounty.us COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO APR SUPR nt 0 F0HIO
2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, vs. Relator, JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO, Respondent. Case No Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition Arising From Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5, respondent Judge Nancy Margaret Russo ("respondent") respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Emergency Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and this cause. The grounds in support of this motion are that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A memorandum in support of this motion is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM D. MASON, Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County, Ohio By: CHARLES E. HANNAN * ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney * Counsel of Record The Justice Center, Courts Tower, 8"' Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Tel: (216) /Fax: (216) P4CEH(a),cuyahogacounty.us COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO
3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS ) Case No BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) ) Original Action in Mandamus and Relator, ) Prohibition Arising From ) Cuyahoga County Common Pleas vs. ) Court Case No ) JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO, ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ) RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO Respondent. ) DISMISS ) STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Relator Highland Local Schools Board of Education ("relator") is a defendant in the underlying Common Pleas case styled, Helen Doyle, Individually and as Guardian, etc. vs. Medical Mutual of Ohio, et al., Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No Trial in that case is scheduled to begin on Monday, April 16, On Thursday, April 12, 2007, however, relator filed this original action in mandamus and prohibition against respondent Judge Nancy Margaret Russo ("respondent"). Relator's claim in mandamus improperly seeks an intrastate transfer of the case from Cuyahoga County to either Morrow County or Richland County. Relator's claim in prohibition improperly seeks to prevent that trial from going forward on April 16, Because relator's action is utterly without merit, respondent respectfully urges this Court to dismiss the Complaint and this cause pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. The facts relevant to this action are that plaintiffs filed the underlying civil action in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court against defendants Medical Mutual of Ohio; Ohio Ski Slopes hic.; and relator Highland Local Schools Board of Education. See "Emergency Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and request for Expedited Consideration" 1
4 (hereafter "Complaint") at para. 4. The case was assigned to the docket of respondent Judge Russo. According to relator's Complaint, "Plaintiffs' position was that Medical Mutual's principal place of business was Cuyahoga County." See Complaint at para. 7. Indeed, relator's Complaint concedes that "Medical Mutual has an apparent principal place of business in Cuyahoga County," id., though relator says that Medical Mutual assigned its rights to Primax Recoveries, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and disputed venue. Id. Nevertheless, defendants Ohio Ski Slopes Inc. and relator Highland Local Schools Board of Education (but not defendant Medical Mutual or Primax) filed a joint motion for transfer of venue on August 14, See Complaint at para. 6. Respondent Judge Russo denied that motion on August 25, See Complaint at para. 7. Relator alleges that respondent denied relator leave to file a motion for summary judgment. See Complaint at para. 5. Trial for the case is scheduled to begin on April 16, See Complaint at paras. 1, 13. Relator's counsel says that he leamed in early Apri12007 that the plaintiffs had or were about to dismiss their claims against defendants Medical Mutual/Primax and Ohio Ski Slopes Inc., leaving relator as the only remaining defendant in the case. See Complaint at paras On Apri19, 2007, relator filed a motion to disnuss or, in the alternative, renewed motion for transfer of venue requesting that this case be dismissed or transferred to Morrow or Richland County. See Complaint at paras Respondent informed relator's counsel on April 9, 2007 that both motions were overruled and that the case was proceeding to trial as scheduled on April 16, On April 12, 2007, relator filed this original action in mandamus and prohibition. 2
5 For the reasons discussed hereafter, respondent respectfully submits that relator's claims in mandamus and prohibition fail as a matter of law such that the Complaint and this cause should be dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. ARGUMENT AND LAW 1. RELATOR'S COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW. Relator's claim in mandamus fails as a matter of law because there is no clear legal right or clear legal duty to order an intrastate venue transfer from Cuyahoga County to either Morrow or Richland County and appeal following judgment is an adequate remedy at law in any event. Because relator's claim in mandamus fails as a matter of law, the claim should be dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. To obtain a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that (1) relator has a clear legal right to have Judge Russo transfer the case from Cuyahoga County to either Morrow or Richland County; (2) Judge Russo was under a clear legal duty to transfer the case from Cuyahoga County to either Morrow or Richland County; (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. MetroHealth Medical Center v. Sutula, 110 Ohio St.3d 201, 2006-Ohio-4249, 852 N.E.2d 722, at 8; State ex rel. Union Cty. Veterans Service Comm. v. Parrott, 108 Ohio St.3d 302, 2006-Ohio-92, 843 N.E.2d 750, at 8. For the reasons that follow, however, relator's claim in mandamus failed as a matter of law. First, relator's Complaint confirms that relator cannot establish either any clear legal right or clear legal duty to transfer the case from Cuyahoga County to either Morrow or Richland County. Ohio Civil Rule 3(B) provides as follows, in relevant part: Any action may be venued, commenced, and decided in any court in any county. *** Proper venue lies in any one or more of the following counties: *** 3
6 (2) The county in which the defendant has his or her principal place of business *x* Ohio Civil Rule 3(E) further provides: In any action, brought by one or more plaintiffs against one or more defendant involving one or more claims for relief, the forum shall be deemed a proper forum, and venue in the forum shall be proper, if the venue is proper as to any one party other than a nominal party, or as to any one claim for relief. Neither the dismissal of any claim nor of any party except an indispensable party shall affect the jurisdiction of the court over the remaining parties. In this case, relator's Complaint concedes that the plaintiffs below alleged that the principal place of business for defendant Medical Mutual of Ohio was Cuyahoga County. See Complaint at para. 7. hideed, relator concedes that "Medical Mutual has an apparent principal place of business in Cuyahoga County." Id. Thus venue in Cuyahoga County was proper as to defendant Medical Mutual of Ohio pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 3(B)(2). Because Cuyahoga County was a proper venue as to that defendant, it was likewise proper as to the other defendants pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 3(E). And under Ohio Civil Rule 3(E), any subsequent dismissal of defendant Medical Mutual of Ohio would not "affect the jurisdiction of the court over the remaining parties." Because venue was proper in Cuyahoga County, there was no basis for an intrastate transfer to another county as demanded by relator. Ohio Civil Rule 3(C) provides as follows, in relevant part: (1) When an action has been commenced in a county other than stated to be proper in division (B) of this rule, upon timely assertion of the defense of improper venue as provided in Civ.R. 12, the court shall transfer the action to a county stated to be proper in division (B) of this rule. (Emphasis added.) 4
7 But this provision applies only when an action has not been commenced in a proper venue under Civil Rule 3(B). Because venue in Cuyahoga County was proper under Civil Rule 3(B)(2), Civil Rule 3(C)(1) is inapplicable as a matter of law. Nor does Ohio law permit the intrastate venue transfer demanded by relator here. Ohio Civil Rule 3(C)(4) provides: Upon motion of any party or upon its own motion the court may transfer any action to an adjoining county within this state when it appears that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the suit is pending. In State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 106 Ohio St.3d 151, 2005-Ohio-4103, 832 N.E.2d 1206, the Supreme Court of Ohio confinned that Ohio law does not permit intrastate transfers from one Ohio county to another. Id. at 15. The court stated: Civ.R. 3, governing venue, recognizes that transfer of a case from one proper venue to another proper venue within the state for means of convenience is unnecessary in a geographically small state such as Ohio, and that any inconvenience to witnesses in such a situation could be remedies by the use of depositions. Id. (emphasis in original). And in tenns that are readily applicable here, the court said: The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Smith's medical-malpractice case was properly venued in Cuyahoga County because Cleveland Clinic's principal place of business is located there. Civ.R. 3(B)(2). And because the Cleveland Clinic raised no issue and introduced no evidence that it would be unable to receive a fair trial in Cuyahoga County, the Cuyahoga County court erred in transferring the medical-malpractice case to Wayne County. Even if the Cleveland Clinic had introduced such evidence, the Cuyahoga County court still erred in transferring the case because Wayne County does not adjoin Cuyahoga County. See Civ.R. 3(C)(4) ("Upon motion of any party or upon its own motion the court may transfer any action to an adjoining county within this state when it appears that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the suit is pending.") Id. at 16 (emphasis in original). Likewise here, the plaintiffs' case was properly venued in Cuyahoga County under Civ.R. 3(B)(2) because defendant Medical Mutual's principal place of business was alleged to be 5
8 located there, regardless of whether the case alternatively could have been filed in some other Ohio venue. As noted previously, any subsequent dismissal of defendant Medical Mutual did not affect venue in Cuyahoga County under Civ.R. 3(E). Notwithstanding relator's assertion that Cuyahoga County is an inconvenient venue for witnesses, see Complaint at para. 12, State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas establishes that this properly venued case cannot be transferred intrastate as a convenience. Relator has not alleged much less shown that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in Cuyahoga County, so there are no grounds for transfer under Civ.R. 3(C)(4). And because neither Morrow or Richland Counties are adjoining counties to Cuyahoga County, there is no basis whatsoever for the writ of mandamus demanded by relator in this case. While relator's failure to show either a clear legal right or clear legal duty for an intrastate venue transfer is grounds alone to deny extraordinary relief in mandamus, relator's claim fails additionally and alternatively because relator fails to that it lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law to contest the trial court's allegedly erroneous venue rulings. In State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford, 78 Ohio St.3d 391, 1997-Ohio-72, 678 N.E.2d 549, the Supreme Court of Ohio said: "Although an order changing venue does not constitute a final appealable order, it is reviewable after a final judgment is entered in the action." Id. at 395, 1997-Ohio-72, 678 N.E.2d 549. See, also, State ex rel. Lyons v. Zaleski, 75 Ohio St.3d 623, 625, 1996-Ohio-267, 665 N.E.2d 212. Consequently, "[e]xtraordinary relief in mandamus or prohibition generally does not lie to challenge a decision on a motion to change venue because appeal following a nal judgment provides an adequate legal remedy." State ex rel. Banc One Corp. v. Walker, 86 Ohio St.3d 169, 173, 1999-Ohio-151, 712 N.E.2d 742. See, also, State ex rel. Lyons v. Zaleski, supra, 75 Ohio 6
9 St.3d at 625, 1996-Ohio-267, 665 N.E.2d 212. In the instant case, relator's Complaint does not state any set of facts to establish that relator lacks an adequate remedy at law. Relator's Complaint confirms that the underlying case is proceeding in Cuyahoga County alone. Because there is no prospect of simultaneous multiple actions, appeal following final judgment is an adequate remedy at law. See State ex rel. Banc One Corp. v. Walker, 86 Ohio St.3d at 173, 1999-Ohio-151, 712 N.E.2d 742; State ex rel. Lyons v. Zaleski, 75 Ohio St.3d at 625, 1996-Ohio-267, 665 N.E.2d 212. Contrast State ex rel. Starner v. DeHoff (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 163, 480 N.E.2d 449 (no adequate remedy because separate actions would have proceeded in Holmes and Stark county courts). Relator's reliance on State ex rel. Ohio State Racing Comm. v. Walton (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 246, 525 N.E.2d 756, is misplaced. See relator's Memorandum in Support at pp In that case involving daily tax abatements for each racing day, the court held that the potential need to pursue a claim for a refund under R.C (B) as an additional remedy caused appeal alone to be an inadequate remedy under those circumstances. See 37 Ohio St.3d at 248, 525 N.E.2d 756. By contrast, there is no indication from relator's Complaint that any additional remedy would be necessary here even if there were a reversal on appeal. Because no additional remedy would be necessary, appeal is an adequate remedy at law that precludes extraordinary relief in mandamus. See State ex rel. Banc One Corp. v. Walker, 86 Ohio St.3d at 173, 1999-Ohio-151, 712 N.E.2d 742; State ex rel. Lyons v. Zaleski, 75 Ohio St.3d at , 1996-Ohio-267, 665 N.E.2d 212. Relator maintains that appeal is not adequate, complaining that it will have to try the case before it can take an appeal. See Complaint at para. 16. But the mere fact that there may be time 7
10 and expense incurred before an appeal to contest the venue rulings is taken does not make appeal an inadequate legal remedy. See State ex rel. Banc One Corp. v. Walker, 86 Ohio St.3d at , 1999-Ohio-151, 712 N.E.2d 742; State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford, 78 Ohio St.3d at , 1997-Ohio-72, 678 N.E.2d 549. "The fact that postjudgment appeal may be timeconsuming and expensive does not render appeal inadequate so as to justify extraordinary relief." Fraiberg v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Div. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 374, 379, 667 N.E.2d In short, relator's Complaint utterly fails to establish grounds for extraordinary relief in mandamus. Accordingly, relator's claim and this cause should be dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. II. RELATOR'S COMPLAINT IN PROHIBITION FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW. Relator's claim in prohibition likewise fails as a matter of law. Relator's Complaint utterly fails to establish any unauthorized exercise of judicial power or the lack of any adequate remedy at law. Because respondent does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to conduct judicial proceedings, relator's claim in prohibition and this cause should be dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. It will be recalled that an action in prohibition tests only the jurisdiction of the lower court. See State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 554, 2001-Ohio-15, 740 N.E.2d 265; State ex rel. Staton v. Common Pleas Court (1965), 5 Ohio St.2d 17, 21, 213 N.E.2d 164. "Jurisdiction" means the court's constitutional or statutory power to adjudicate a case and encompasses jurisdiction over the subject matter, the person, and the particular case. See Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, at
11 To obtain a writ of prohibition, the relator must show that (1) the court against whom the writ was sought was exercising or about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law; and (3) denial of the writ would cause injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. The Illuminating Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 97 Ohio St.3d 69, 2002-Ohio-5312, 776 N.E.2d 92,114. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack ofjurisdiction, however, a court of general jurisdiction can generally determine its own jurisdiction and a party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal. State ex rel. Nalls v. Russo, 96 Ohio St.3d 410, 2002-Ohio- 4907, 775 N.E.2d 522, at 18. "Prohibition will not issue as a substitute for appeal to review mere errors in judgment." Id. at 28. Thus "[a]ppeal, not prohibition, is the remedy for the correction of errors or irregularities of a court having proper jurisdiction." Smith v. Warren, 89 Ohio St.3d 467, 468, 2000-Ohio-223, 732 N.E.2d 992. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court of Ohio need not expressly determine the underlying jurisdictional issue, for its review "is limited to whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking." State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio St.3d 426, 431, Ohio-301, 751 N.E.2d 472 (emphasis in original; citations and intemal punctuation omitted). In the case at bar, relator cannot dispute that respondent Judge Russo has the basic statutory jurisdiction to hear the underlying tort lawsuit. See R.C Nor has relator shown that any exercise of judicial power is unauthorized by law. While relator again contests the trial court's venue rulings, the preceding discussion shows that the trial court's decision to retain the underlying case and not transfer venue from Cuyahoga to Morrow or Richland County 9
12 was correct and indeed mandated by this Court's decision in State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 106 Ohio St.3d 151, 2005-Ohio-4103, 832 N.E.2d Moreover, Ohio Civil Rule 3(G) expressly declares that the venue provisions of Ohio Civil Rule 3 "are not jurisdictional." In State ex rel. Lyons v. Zaleski, 75 Ohio St.3d 623, Ohio-267, 665 N.E.2d 212, the court, citing Ohio Civil Rule 3(G), noted that Lyons's contention that Judge Zaleski failed to comply with Civil Rule 3 in transferring the underlying case to Sandusky County challenged venue and was not jurisdictional. See 75 Ohio St.3d at , 1996-Ohio-267, 665 N.E.2d 212. Thus relator's dispute over Judge Russo's venue ruling is ot a jurisdictional challenge in any case. Respondent Judge Russo is a court of general jurisdiction. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, respondent can determine her own jurisdiction and relator, even if it really were contesting that jurisdiction, has an adequate remedy by appeal. State ex rel. Nalls v. Russo, 96 Ohio St.3d 410, 2002-Ohio-4907, 775 N.E.2d 522, at 18. Relator assuredly has not shown that respondent is patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to conduct these proceedings. And as was noted in the preceding discussion, appeal is plainly an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law in this case. Because relator has utterly failed to establish grounds for extraordinary relief in prohibition, its claim for extraordinary relief in prohibition and this cause should be dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. 10
13 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, respondent Judge Nancy Margaret Russo respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Complaint in mandamus and prohibition and this cause pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X, Section 5. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM D. MASON, Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County, Ohio By: CHARLES E. HANNAN * ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney * Counsel of Record The Justice Center, Courts Tower, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Tel: (216) /Fax: (216) P4CEH@.cuyahogacounty.us COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO 11
14 PROOF OF SERVICE A true copy of the foregoing Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was served this ^^'3x! day of Apri12007, by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon: Nicholas E. Subashi The Oakwood Building 2305 Far Hills Avenue Dayton, Ohio COUNSEL FOR RELATOR HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION CffARLES E. HANNAN * Assistant Prosecuting Attorney * Counsel of Record 12
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 26, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 26, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0173 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX REL. ) CASE NO. 2015-0173 AYMAN DAHMAN, MD, ET AL., ) ) Original Action
More information^^UL 3-1 Z014 CLERK OF COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX REL. BERNARD NIEDERST, CASE NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX REL. BERNARD NIEDERST, vs. Relator, RICHARD J. McMONAGLE, JUDGE, Respondent. CASE NO. 2014-1119 Original Action in Prohibition and Procedendo Arising From
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed November 10, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed November 10, 2014 - Case No. 2014-1775 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO LYNDA HICKS, ) CASE NO. 2014-1775 ) Relator, ) ) vs. ) Original Action in Prohibition Arising
More informationIn The SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ORIG1NAx: State of Ohio, ex rel., Columbus Southern Power Company, Relator, In The SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 10-1155 Original Action in Prohibition V. Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. John A. Bessey, Judge,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ^ ^ ^^ Cinseree Johnson, Relator : OHIO SUPREME COURT : CASE NO: 12-1776 vs. : (Original Action in Prohibition) John Bodovetz, et al., ^ Respondents ^ _ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, EX REL. ANTONIO PETERSON CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR
[Cite as State ex rel. Peterson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court Judge & Prosecutor, 2010-Ohio-4501.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
More informationOR G NAL MAY CLERK AW11" Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EXREL. RENEE ENGELHART,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OR G NAL STATE OF OHIO EXREL. RENEE ENGELHART, vs. Appellant, On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals Eighth Appellate District HONORABLE NANCY MARGARET. Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. RICHARD F. : Case No. 2013-0295 DAVET P.O. Box 10092 : Original Action in Prohibition and Cleveland, Ohio 44110 : Mandamus Arising From Cuyahoga
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 19, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 19, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0173 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX REL. ) CASE NO. 2015-0173 AYMAN DAHMAN, MD, ET AL., ) ) Original Action in
More information[Cite as Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195.]
[Cite as Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195.] DZINA, APPELLANT, v. CELEBREZZE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Cite as Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195.] Writ of mandamus
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROHIBITION MELVIN BONNELL'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State ex rel. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William D. Mason, Relator, Case No. 10-1001 v. The Honorable Judge Timothy McCormick : Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas : Respondent.
More informationGDE G"E.^V ED. 0*q G/^^4 MAR QB 2091 CLERK OF COURT ISUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No vs-
0*q G/^^4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. ERRICK BOLDEN, RELATOR, Case No. 2011-0290 -vs- THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY MCMONAGLE, RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS RELATOR, PRO SE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. v. Court of Appeals Case No. CA The Court of Common Pleas of Ohio-1839 Cuyahoga County, Probate Division
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio ex rel. James L. McQueen, Appellant, On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District v. Court of Appeals Case No. CA-12-97835 The
More informationMOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. SHURMALE GARNER, Relator, CASE NO. 2008-1663 Original Action in Mandamus V. JUDGES, 11T" DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, Respondents. MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Relators, Respondent.
^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, et rel. CASE NO. MORRIS KINAST, M.D. AND NEUROCARE CENTER, INC. 4105 Holiday St., N.W. P.O. Box 35006 Canton, OH 44375 1 3 O i 5 9 vs. Relators, THE HONORABLE
More informationp L DD 0q^^/41, CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State ex rel., McGRATH Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 0q^^/41, State ex rel., McGRATH V. Relato THE EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, Case No. 2010-1860 Original Action in Mandamus and Procedendo Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State ex rel. Ford v. Adm. Judge of Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2013-Ohio-4197.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100053
More information, INAt. M.Au tlet.200.g CLFRK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF 0 HI0 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. DAVID J. PISHOK, Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, INAt DAVID J. PISHOK, Case No. 2009-0342 Petitioner-Appellant, On Appeal from the Trumbull County vs. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Appellate District BENNIE KELLY, Warden, Court
More information[Cite as Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2008-Ohio-853.]
[Cite as Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2008-Ohio-853.] ROSEN, APPELLANT, v. CELEBREZZE, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2008-Ohio-853.] Child custody
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Huffman v. Cleveland, Parking Violations Bur., 2016-Ohio-496.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 103447 FORDHAM E. HUFFMAN vs.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
[Cite as McIntyre v. Rice, 2003-Ohio-3940.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 81339 ROBERT W. McINTYRE, ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : NANCY
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Holloway v. State, 2014-Ohio-2971.] [Please see original opinion at 2014-Ohio-1951.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100586
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Chiple v. Acme Arsena Co., Inc., 2006-Ohio-5029.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87586 MICHAEL A. CHIPLE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More information12PREM;^O ^, Q^0 APR CLERK OFCOURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
[State of Ohio ex rel.]david Fox, Relator, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2008 vs. Case No. 08-0626 Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Original Complaint in Mandamus Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Randy Shepherd, vs. Relator, Case No. 11-1714 Original Action in Mandamus Judge James Henson, Respondent RESPONDENT JUDGE JAMES HENSON'S MOTION TO STRIKE RELATOR'S COMBINED
More informationSLIP OPINION NO OHIO-5523 THE STATE EX REL. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Chillicothe v. Ross Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5523.] NOTICE This slip opinion
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 2006-Ohio-3459.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 2006-Ohio-3459.] THE STATE EX REL. RUSSO, JUDGE, v. MCDONNELL, JUDGE. [Cite as State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 2006-Ohio-3459.]
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Jain v. Omni Publishing, Inc., 2009-Ohio-5221.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92121 MOHAN JAIN DBA BUSINESS PUBLISHING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationO1.tKK OF COURT ^EK COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 ^46. Case No STATE OF OHIO,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 F,^ ^rv ^46 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 11-1473 -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant EMMANUEL HAMPTON, On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District Court
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as N.A.D. v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist., 2012-Ohio-4929.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97195 N.A.D., ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Friedman v. McClelland, 2012-Ohio-1538.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97036 ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DAN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RESPONDENT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CHARLES DAVID FOOCE, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2008-1810 V. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Respondent. Original Action in Mandamus RESPONDENT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 2003-Ohio-3959.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 82148 CHARLES V. DIXON JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
More informationCLL-REA 01, aaollr SUPREME CtlURs-" 01"OHI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO JEFFREY C. KEITH Petitioner, -vs- SUPREML COURT NO. On Appeal from the Eleventh District Court of Appeals Court of Appeals No. 2009-T-0056 Decision rendered December 21, 2009
More informationJUDGE BARBARA GORMAN,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE, ex rel. LARRY E. EALY, : CASE NO. 08-2400 Relator, V. Original Action in Mandamus JUDGE BARBARA GORMAN, Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT, JUDGE BARBARA GORMAN
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Maclin v. Cleveland, 2015-Ohio-2956.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102417 LISA MACLIN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES vs. CITY
More informationAUQ 2 0 2oo9 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appellee. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No and No GEORGE SULLIVAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No. 2008-0691 and No. 2008-0817 GEORGE SULLIVAN Appellee V. ANDERSON TOWNSHIP, et al. On Appeal from the Haniilton County Court of Appeals First Appellate District Court of
More information* CASE NO: 633 * * * ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 (MIAMI VALLEY BROADCASTING CORPORATION) 1414 Wilmington Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45420 * CASE NO: 633 * * * ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS vs. Relator SHERIFF
More informationSANDRA HAVEL VILLA ST. JOSEPH, ET AL.
[Cite as Havel v. St. Joseph, 2010-Ohio-5251.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94677 SANDRA HAVEL vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VILLA ST. JOSEPH,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State ex rel. Parma Cty. Gen. Hosp. v. O'Donnell, 2013-Ohio-2923.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100005 STATE EX REL., PARMA
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Bonner, 2011-Ohio-843.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95244 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CHRISTOPHER J. BONNER
More informationMorrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd 10 West Broad Street, Suite W. Main Street, P.O. Box 4190 Columbus, OH Newark, OH
[Cite as Ohiotelnet.com, Inc. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5969.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OHIOTELNET.COM, INC., ET AL Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- WINDSTREAM OHIO,
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
David R. Langdon (0067046) Thomas W. Kidd, Jr. (0066359) Bradley M. Peppo (0083847) Trial Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO LETOHIOVOTE.ORG 208 East State Street
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as 2188 Brockway, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2015-Ohio-109.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101529 2188 BROCKWAY,
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed May 01, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed May 01, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0670 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE EX REL. WILLIAM A. CLUMM, : : Relator, : Case No. 2015-0670 : v. : Original Action in Mandamus
More informationDefendant's Brief in Support of Demand for Trial by Jury
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 19952002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 3111999 Defendant's Brief in Support of Demand for Trial by Jury William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Marilyn
More informationF L= JUL CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No.:
WILLIAM A. CLUMM, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Relator, Case No.: 07-1140 V. OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al., Respondents. MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
More informationAPPEARANCES: { 1} Relator Pression Jean-Baptiste filed a complaint for peremptory writ
[Cite as State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, 2011-Ohio-3368.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY : State of Ohio ex rel. : Pression Jean-Baptiste, : : Relator, :
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs. : AND
[Cite as State v. Quran, 2002-Ohio-4917.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 80701 STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND KHALED QURAN, : OPINION Defendant-Appellant
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2012-Ohio-3358.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97358 MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Brown v. Carlton Harley Davidson, Inc., 2014-Ohio-5157.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101494 BRUCE ANDREW BROWN, ETC., ET
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DOUGLAS P. LABORDE, ET AL., : CASE NO. 12-CV-8517 : PLAINTIFFS, : : V. : JUDGE COCROFT : THE CITY OF GAHANNA, ET AL., : : DEFENDANTS. : DECISION AND ENTRY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
00900 ^k%e IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO NICHOLAS J. KINSTLE ) CASE NO: 13-0735 Relator, VS. ORIGINAL ACTION IN MADAMUS JUERGEN A. WALDICK Prosecuting Attorney ) MOTION TO DISMISS and ) MANDAMUS PETITION
More informationCLERK OF COURT SURREME COURTOFOHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. [State ex. rel.] Jenkins Smith, Case No Original Action in Mandamus
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO [State ex. rel.] Jenkins Smith, V. Relator, The Honorable Judge Nodine Miller (retired), et al, Case No. 09-0353 Original Action in Mandamus Respondents. RESPONDENTS JUDGE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OBAMA FOR AMERICA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 108CV00562 vs. JUDGE GAUGHAN CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendant ANSWER OF
More informationAND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 10, 2006
[Cite as Steindler v. Meyers, Lamanna & Roman, 2006-Ohio-4097.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 86852 SHIRLEY STEINDLER Plaintiff-appellee vs. MEYERS, LAMANNA & ROMAN,
More informationState's Objections to Discovery and Motion for Protective Order
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 19952002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 7281999 State's Objections to Discovery and Motion for Protective Order William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Marilyn
More informationIMM FED 13 Z013 CLERK OF COURT SUPR^ME COURT F 0H1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. FRANCESCA STEINHART, et al., CASE NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IMM FRANCESCA STEINHART, et al., Relators, vs. CASE NO. 2013-0102 Original Action in Mandamus THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al. Respondents. RESPONDENT
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Ohio
N 2008-2363 In the Supreme Court of Ohio MARCIA A. MAYER, ET AL. Plaintiffs-Appellees, V. MARIO MEDANCIC, ET AL. Defendants-Appellants. COURT OF APPEALS, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. N. Am. v. Hursell, 2011-Ohio-571.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES NORTH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as In re Foreclosure of Liens, 2015-Ohio-1258.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF THE: : O P I N I O N FORECLOSURE OF LIENS AND FORFEITURE OF
More informationo11, ^^I NA L IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State ex rel. DAVID UNTIED, Relator, Case No Original Action in Prohibition
o11, ^^I NA L! State ex rel. DAVID UNTIED, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Relator, V. Case No. 2014-1059 Original Action in Prohibition JUDGE DAVID BRANSTOOL, et al., Respondents. MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE )
[Cite as Ellis v. Rubbermaid Inc., 2003-Ohio-5046.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) EMMA ELLIS Appellant v. RUBBERMAID INCORPOROATED, et.al. Appellees
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as McCoy v. Cicchini Ents., Inc., 2012-Ohio-1182.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SARAH McCOY, et al., -vs- Plaintiffs-Appellees CICCHINI ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
More information1N THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CASE NO Cleveland, Ohio 44104, RELATORS' MOTION FOR Relator, ) RECONSIDERATION
1N THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. TERRANCE McCLAIN, 11091 Reservoir Place Drive CASE NO. 2009-1413 Cleveland, Ohio 44104, RELATORS' MOTION FOR Relator, ) RECONSIDERATION vs. Expedited
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Everett v. Parma Hts., 2013-Ohio-5314.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99611 RENEE EVERETT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS vs.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY VANCE, ET AL., CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N
[Cite as Vance v. Marion Gen. Hosp., 165 Ohio App.3d 615, 2006-Ohio-146.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY VANCE, ET AL., CASE NUMBER 9-05-23 APPELLANTS, v. O P I N I O N MARION
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2005
[Cite as State v. Gramlich, 2005-Ohio-503.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 84172 STATE OF OHIO JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION HELENA GRAMLICH, AKA LISA
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 10, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 10, 2015 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel. : PAULETTA HIGGINS, : : Relator, : : v. : Original Action in : Mandamus/Prohibition
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RAYSHON WATLEY, pro se Relator, : V. Case No. _r': f.. Mandamus Action THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT
More information[Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA. JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No.
[Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94637 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANT_ ABRAMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Bellisario v. Cuyahoga Cty. Child Support Agency, 2007-Ohio-4834.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88788 ANDREW J. BELLISARIO
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State ex rel. E. Cleveland v. Norton, 2013-Ohio-3723.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98772 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., CITY OF
More informationAUG CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS University of Cincinnati and The Ohio State University
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO YVETTE BARBARA BALDWIN, Relator, CASE NO. 08-1372 vs. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, et al., Respondents. Original Action in Mandamus RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
More informationSUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF OHIO RELATOR S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF MANDAMUS
SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF OHIO State ex rel. Ohio Citizen Action ) 614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1200 ) Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ) ) Case No. Relator, ) v. ) ) J. Kenneth Blackwell ) Ohio Secretary
More informationself-dealing and conversion of partnership funds for their own purposes without the knowledge and consent of the limited partners.
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by
More information0"IO'AfAl CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO State of Ohio, ex rel. Johnny Holloway, Jr.
0"IO'AfAl IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio, ex rel. Johnny Holloway, Jr. V. Appellee, Personnel Appeals Board, City of Huber Heights CASE NO. 2010-1972 On Appeal from the Montgomery County Court
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as FIA Card Servs. v. Marshall, 2010-Ohio-4244.] STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. fka ) MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., ) ) CASE NO. 10 CA 864
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Now comes the Respondent, the Honorable James M. Burge, Judge of the Lorain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OVP k4e JERRY L. HARPER CASE NO. 13-0705 Relator V. JUDGE JAMES M. BURGE, et al. MOTION TO DISMISS ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS Respondent Now comes the Respondent, the Honorable
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Hull v. Charter One Bank, 2013-Ohio-2101.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99308 DOROTHY L. HULL, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
More information[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93379 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MILTON HILL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MOTION OF THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY TO INTERVENE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO The Ohio Democratic Party, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. C2 04-1055 : v. : Judge Marbley : J. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State, : in his official
More informationMILLING AWAY LLC UGP PROPERTIES LLC, ET AL.
[Cite as Milling Away, L.L.C. v. UGP Properties, L.L.C., 2011-Ohio-1103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95751 MILLING AWAY LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Sheffey v. Flowers, 2013-Ohio-1349.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98860 NORMA SHEFFEY, ET AL. vs. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ERIC
More informationGUNTON CORPORATION, DBA PELLA WINDOW & DOOR CO. ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS, ET AL.
[Cite as Gunton Corp. v. Architectural Concepts, 2008-Ohio-693.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89725 GUNTON CORPORATION, DBA PELLA
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Galloway v. Horkulic, 2003-Ohio-5145.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM GALLOWAY, ) ) CASE NO. 02 JE 52 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ) ) - VS -
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Lalain, 2011-Ohio-4813.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95857 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANIEL LALAIN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationt;i 4:liK OF COURT SUPREUIL yc7urt l7f OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RICKY LEE AMSTUTZ Appellant, V. MICHELE EBERLIN, WARDEN, Appellee. Case No. 2008-0939 On Appeal from the Belmont County Court of Appeals Seventh Appellate District, Court of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Parks v. Indus. Comm., 2004-Ohio-5534.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. Polly Parks, : Relator, : v. : No. 03AP-1045 Industrial Commission
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Castro, 2012-Ohio-2206.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97451 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOSE CASTRO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationDIANA WILLIAMS OHIO EDISON, ET AL.
[Cite as Williams v. Ohio Edison, 2009-Ohio-5702.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92840 DIANA WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. OHIO
More informationTENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation : (REGULAR CALENDAR) and Correction, : Respondent. : D E C I S I O N
[Cite as State ex rel. Simonsen v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2008-Ohio-6825.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Keith Simonsen, : Relator, : v. : No. 08AP-21 Ohio
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Page, 2011-Ohio-83.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94369 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIE PAGE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, 2014-Ohio-4370.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SENIAH CORPORATION JUDGES Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Bristow v. WOIO, 2001-Ohio-4153.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Bristow v. WOIO, 2001-Ohio-4153.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80087 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : LONNY LEE BRISTOW : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF Relator
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Gulley, 2011-Ohio-4123.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96161 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. BOBBY E. GULLEY
More informationMemorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 1995-2002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 4-23-1999 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer Terry H. Gilbert Counsel for
More informationMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
IN THE STATE OF OHIO, EX. REL. ROMAR MONTGOMERY, Relator, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO v. CASE NO. 09-1336 LICKING COUNTY COURT HOUSE, Respondent. MOTION TO STRIKE MEMO OPPOSING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Khatib v. Peters, 2015-Ohio-5144.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102663 MARIA KHATIB, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES vs. SHAMELL
More information[Cite as Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, Ohio-1803]
[Cite as Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 2001- Ohio-1803] JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. TIMMERMAN-COOPER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 614.] Juvenile
More information