IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
|
|
- Alan Flynn
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ORIGINAL STATE OF OHIO, ex rel CHANTIL CASKEY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Relator, CASE NO vs. On Appeal from the Greene County Court of Appeals, Second Appellate THE HONORABLE G. ALLEN GANO,. District JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. Court of Appeals Case No CA 36 Sitting by Assignment, Respondent. MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLEE-RESPONDENT ELIZABETH A. ELLIS ( ) Civil Division Chief Office of the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney 55 Greene Street, First Floor Xenia, OH TX: (937) FX: (937) Attorney for Respondent, Judge G. Allen Gano ROBERT K. HENDRIX ( ) Peterson & Peterson, LLC 87 S. Progress Drive Xenia, OH TX: (937) FX: (937) hantil Caskey SEP 19 ;'012 cd CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COUR'a OF OHIO ^UD SEP 1 U 2012 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 4 ARGUMENT... 8 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. i: RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW RELATOR TO INTERVENE ABSENT A STATUTORY RIGHT TO INTERVENE... io PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CANNOT BE APPLIED TO BAR AN ACTION IN A COURT WITH EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: THE REMEDY FOR A VIOLATION OF R.C IS THE APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL. AN INITIAL VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT DIVEST THE PROBATE COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPLICATION CONCLUSION... i8 2
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE CASES InReAdoption ofridenour(i99i), 6i Ohio St. 3d ,8,i5 State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, Greene App. No. 1t-CA-5i, 2oii-Ohio-6i In Re: J.T.F., Greene App. No. 12-CA-o3, 2012-Ohio State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, Greene App. No. 12-CA-36 (June 14, 2012)...7 State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan, 91 Ohio St. 3d 331, 2001-Ohio-54 7 State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131, 20io-Ohio State ex rel. Portage Cty.Welfare Dept. v. Summers (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 144 8>9,14 State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 2002-Ohio Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2oo8-Ohio State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty.Crt of App, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 20o8-Ohio State ex rel. Furnas v. Monnin, 12o Ohio St.3d 279, 2oo8-Ohio Peebles v. Clement (198o), 63 Ohio St.2d u State, ex rel. Heller, v. Miller (198o), 61 Ohio St.2d 6...ii Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct li-i2 Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 4o8 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct Montez v. San Antonio Indep. School Dist: (C.A.5, i987), 817 F.2d i2 Dorian v. Bd. of Edn. (i98o), 62 Ohio St.2d i2 Perry v. Sindermann (1972), 408 U.S. 593,92 S.Ct Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct ,i3 Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745,102 S.Ct i2,i3 Troxel v. Granville (2000), 530 U.S. 57, 66,120 S.Ct i2 In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89...i3 In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-72o8...i3 In re Stevens (July 16, i993), Montgomery App. No Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381, 1995-Ohio i4 Krahn v. Kinney (1989),43 Ohio St.3d i4 In Re Young /Noble v. Noble (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 90...i5 Volk v. Volk, Crawford App. No (May 27, 1983) i6 In re Griffiths (1975), 47 Ohio App. 2d i6 In readoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249, 2o1o-Ohio In Re Adoption of Baby Doe, 9th Dist. No (April 14, 1999) 17 State ex rel. Powell v. Markus, 115 Ohio St.3d 219, 2007-Ohio State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 426, STATUTES Ohio Revised Code Section Ohio Revised Code Section 3107.o6... 5,10,13 Ohio Revised Code Section ,10,13 Ohio Revised Code Section ,i,a3 Ohio Revised Code Section i7 RULES OF PROCEDURE Ohio Civ. R , 10, 13 3
4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The child at issue in this case was born to Courtney Litteral while she was incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. The child was initially placed with her mother in the institution's ABC program; however, Courtney lost her eligibility for that program. Because she last resided in Greene County, Ohio, the Greene County Children Services Board (GCCSB) took action in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, to have the child adjudicated dependent and placed in a foster home. The child was initially placed in Union County, but was later transferred to the Relator/Appellant's home, upon Courtney's release from prison back to Greene County. Relator is a certified foster parent for the Greene County Children Services Board. As a result of the litigation in Juvenile Court, the child was adjudicated dependent, temporary custody was granted to GCCSB. While the dependency case was still pending in Juvenile Court, Courtney Litteral, through Attorney Jim Swaim, filed an Application for Placement of the child with Robert and Amy Foster in the Greene County Probate Court. Robert and Amy Foster have adopted an older sibling of the child. Shortly thereafter, Courtney Litteral filed a motion in Juvenile Court seeking to terminate GCCSB's temporary custody or to grant legai custody to Robert and Amy Foster. Reiator also filed a motion for legal custody of the child. The Greene County Juvenile Court held a hearing and made a determination that it was in the best interest of the child to be placed with Relator, and granted legal custody of the child to Relator. Courtney Litteral, 4
5 however, retained her residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities, which has been defined as, "including, but not necessarily limited to, the privilege of reasonable visitation, consent to adoption, the privilege to determine the child's religious affiliation, and the responsibility for support." R.C oii(A) (46). Accordingly, Courtney Litteral proceeded with the application for placement in the Probate Court. The Probate Court scheduled the matter for a hearing on May 24th, 2011, and notice was provided to Relator. Relator filed a Motion to Dismiss the Application for Placement, asserting collateral estoppels barred a subsequent adjudication of the best interest of the child; the petitioner failed to set forth the name and address of the putative father; and that two members of the same law firm could not represent the petitioner and the prospective adoptive parents. Greene County Probate Court Judge Hagler denied the motion and then recused himself and Respondent was appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court to preside over the case. Robert and Amy Foster then filed a Petition for Adoption, with Attorney Jim Swaim signing off as counsel for Robert and Amy Foster. Subsequently, Attorney Adrienne Brooks filed a notice of substitution of counsel on behalf of Robert and Amy Foster. Relator then sought to be added as a necessary party to the adoption proceeding as a legal guardian. Courtney Litteral, through counsel, objected. Relator filed a previous Mandamus action to require Respondent to add Relator as a necessary party, and a previous Prohibition action to prohibit Respondent from taking action on the Application for Placement and Petition to Adopt. 5
6 Respondent issued a decision on the Motion to Be Added as a Party filed by Relator. Respondent held that pursuant to In Re Ridenour et. al. (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 319, Relator does not have the right to intervene in an adoption proceeding as a legal custodian's consent is not required for adoption under R.C o6 and R.C ii(A)(2). Respondent further held that a best interest of the child determination in Juvenile Court in a dependency case does not bar a Probate Court from making a similar determination in an adoption proceeding, as the Probate Court holds exclusive, original jurisdiction over Adoptions. In State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano (Caskey I), Greene App. No. il-ca-51, 2011-Ohio-6144, the Second District Court of Appeals denied the writ of prohibition on the basis that respondent did not act outside the probate court's jurisdiction and that Caskey had an adequate remedy at law via appeal. Id. at ii. The Appellate Court denied the writ of mandamus on the basis Caskey had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. Id. at i3. Relator then appealed Respondent's decisions to the Second District Court of Appeals, which held that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in denying the Relator's Civ. R. 24 motion to intervene, and dismissed all other assignments of error as moot. In Re: J.T.F., Greene App. No. 12-CA-o3, 2012-Ohio-2105, 37,43 The same day the Appellate Court decided In Re: J.T.F., supra, the Relator filed the instant petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus. Respondent filed a timely answer. The Second District Court of Appeals held that Caskey was not entitled to a writ of prohibition because she could not demonstrate that she had a clear legal right to the relief sought, because she was not a party to the 6
7 adoption proceeding and continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court over a child does not present a jurisdictional bar to adoption proceedings in probate court. State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano (Caskey II), Greene App. No. 12-CA-36 (June 14, 2012), 8. The Court also held that Caskey was not entitled to a writ of mandamus, as mandamus will not issue to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is abused. Id. at 9, qtg. State ex rel. Carroll u. Corrigan, 91 Ohio St. 3d 331, 20oi-Ohio-54 7
8 ARGUMENT PROHIBITION V.IVIANDAMUS To be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, Relator must establish that (i) Respondent is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131, 20io-Ohio-5039, 13. Respondent has exercised and would continue to exercise judicial power in the underlying adoption proceeding. Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. See In re Adoption of Ridenour (1991), 6i Ohio St.3d 319, 324; State ex rel. Portage Cty. Welfare Dept. v. Summers (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 144, 151 ("original and exclusive jurisdiction over adoption proceedings is vested specifically in the Probate Court pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3107"). For the remaining requirements, "[i]f a lower court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a cause, prohibition * * * will issue to prevent any future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to correct the results of prior jurisdictionally unauthorized actions." State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 2002-Ohio-6323, 12; Rosen v. Celebrezze, 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2oo8-Ohio-853, 883 N.E.2d 420, i8. "Where jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, relators need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law because the availability of alternate remedies like appeal would be immaterial." State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 1i8 Ohio St.3d 368, 20o8-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, 15; State ex rel. Furnas v. Monnin, 120 Ohio St.3d 279, 2oo8-Ohio-5569, ii. 8
9 Therefore, the dispositive issue in the Prohibition action is whether the Respondent patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the Application for Placement and Robert and Amy Foster's petition to adopt the child when the same attorney represented both parties at the time the applications were filed, although the parties now have separate counsel. Respondent submits that any statutory violation has been remedied and Respondent has the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the subject matter. Accordingly, Relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to a writ of prohibition. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Relator must establish a clear legal right to intervene in the proceedings, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Respondent to allow the intervention, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Duncan v. Portage County Board of Elections, 117 Ohio St. 3d 116, 2007-Ohio-5346, 8. Respondent submits that for the reasons set forth in the argument section below, the Relator's right to be an intervening party is not required under R.C (H) when Respondent has held that Relator has unreasonably withheld consent. Further, pursuant to Civ. R. 24, Respondent does not have a clear legal duty to permit Relator to intervene absent a statutory right. Finally, Relator has appealed the decision of Respondent, so Relator has an adequate remedy at law. Thus, the Relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to a writ of mandamus. 9
10 PROPOSTION OF LAW NO. 1: RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW RELATOR TO INTERVENE ABSENT A STATUTORY RIGHT TO INTERVENE Civ. R. 24(A) governs intervention of right and requires a statute to confer either an unconditional or conditional right to intervene. Civ. R. 24(B) governs permissive intervention and provides that a party may intervene upon a showing that (i) a statute of this state confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. R.C o6, , & govern which parties are required/permitted to consent to an adoption. R.C o6 requires the written consent of the mother of the child and the father of the child when certain conditions are present. Consent of a legal custodian is not required under R. C o6. R.C (H) provides that the consent of the legal custodian, who is not a parent, is not required if that custodian has failed to respond to a request for consent for a period of thirty days or if the court finds that the legal custodian is withholding consent unreasonably.l The Respondent has found that Relator is not a required party and as such, she lacks standing to intervene. If Respondent has made this determination in error, Relator has exercised her remedy at law through the appellate process. Further, Relator argues that by not finding that she was entitled to intervene, the Respondent deprived Relator of her statutory rights as legal custodian without affording her process of law to protect those rights in contravention to ` Counsel for the Respondent could not fmd any request for consent from Courtney Litteral or Robert or Amy Foster in the record. The statute is not clear on the mechanism through which the consent must be obtained. However, Respondent properly found that Relator has witbheld consent on the basis of collateral estoppels, and this is not reasonable. 10
11 her constitutional right to due process. The issue of whether a person can be deprived of their legal status as legal custodian of a child without hearing through adoption proceedings is one of first impression. "In providing that no state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that substantial procedural safeguards be provided in our legal system before one may be deprived of a property right." Peebles u. Clement (198o), 63 Ohio St.2d 314, 317. Similarly, Section i6, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides substantially the same safeguards as does the Fourteenth Amendment by specifying that injured persons shall have "remedy by due course of law." Peebles, op. cit.; State, ex rel. Heller, v. Miller (198o), 61 Ohio St.2d 6. The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 4o8 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, Therefore, the applicability of the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process depends in the first instance on the presence of a legitimate "property" or "liberty" interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roth, supra, at 571, 92 S.Ct. at 27o6; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 4o8 U.S. 471,481,92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484. The Supreme Court of the United States in Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709, held that the following is required to have the requisite property interest in a specific benefit: To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement 11
12 to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined. It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims. Therefore, in order to allege a due process deprivation of a property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, the claimant must demonstrate that he had a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to that interest. Roth, supra; Montez v. San Antonio Indep. School Dist. (C.A.5, 1987), 817 F.2d 1124, Such "legitimate claim of entitlement" may be shown by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law. Roth, supra, 4o8 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709; Dorian v. Bd. of Edn. (198o), 62 Ohio St.2d 182, 185. Furthermore, such protected property interest may be created by implied contract. Perry v. Sindermann (1972), 4o8 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694; Dorian, supra; Montez, supra. The United States Supreme Court has defined "liberty" in the due process clause to protect basic aspects of family autonomy. See Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct The Court has subsequently recognized that parents have a fundamental right to custody of their children. See Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, , 102 S.Ct And the Court has expressly held that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children." Troxel v. Granville (2000), 530 U.S. 57, 66,120 S.Ct. 2054,147 L.Ed.2d 49. This Court, too, has noted that "[t]he right of a parent to raise his or her child has been defined as a 'natural' right subject to the protections of due process." In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 97 n. 9, 12
13 citing Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), 262 U.S. 390> 43 S.Ct "Since parents have constitutional custodial rights," the Ohio Supreme Court has said, "any action by the state that affects this parental rights, such as granting custody of a child to a nonparent, must be conducted pursuant to procedures that are fundamentally fair." In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-72o8, at 16, citing Santosky v. Kramer (1986), 455 U.S. 745, 754, 102 S.Ct Further, the Second District has held that "[t]he procedures for determining parental unfitness, unsuitability, the best interests of the child, or matters of public safety, through R.C. 2151, must assure the parties of a fair hearing, and protect their constitutional and other legal rights." In re Stevens (July 16, 1993), Montgomery App. No However, the aforementioned cases and cases relied upon by Relator have only found a right to due process where parental rights of natural or biological parents are at issue. Moreover, Respondent could find no cases that have held that a person that has been designated a legal custodian through an abuse, neglect, or dependency proceedings has a liberty or property interest in status as a legal custodian. In absence of any case law on the issue to the contrary, Respondent reasonably relied upon the requirements and procedures set forth by the General Assembly in determining whether Relator has standing to interevene in an adoption proceeding under Civ. R. 24, R.C o6, R.C , and R.C In so doing, Respondent exercised his discretion in a matter over which he had exclusive, original jurisdiction. 13
14 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CANNOT BE APPLIED TO BAR AN ACTION IN A COURT WITH EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER. Res judicata involves both claim preclusion, which historically has been called estoppel by judgment, and issue preclusion, which traditionally has been referred to as collateral estoppel. Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381, 1995-Ohio-33i, 653 N.E.2d 226. Under the claim preclusion branch of res judicata, "[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Id. at the syllabus. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, precludes relitigation of an issue that has been "actually and necessarily litigated and determined in a prior action." Krahn v. Kinney (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 103,107,538 N.E.2d In the case at bar, Relator is alleging that because the issue of the best interest of the child has been previously litigated in the dependency proceedings in Juvenile Court, the Probate Court should be estopped from making the best interest determination in the adoption proceeding. This issue appears to be one of first impression as well in the State of Ohio, as the undersigned could not find any cases on point. It is well-settled that original and exclusive jurisdiction over adoption proceedings is vested specifically in the probate court pursuant to RC Ch State ex rel. Portage County Welfare Dept. v. Summers (Ohio 1974) 38 Ohio St.2d 144. To hold that a probate court would be estopped from making a best 14
15 interest determination in an adoption case because the child had likewise been adjudicated dependent in the juvenile court would be a usurpation of the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the probate court. Moreover, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that, 'Athe probate court is empowered by the legislature to reach adoption decisions on the basis of the best interests of the child at the time the petition is filed. If the probate court is bound by a prior order from another court, then the probate court may be forced to sacrifice the best interests of the child in order to protect the rights accorded to third parties. Such a result would be inconsistent with the adoption statute and the policies underlying it." In Re Adoption of Ridenour(199i), 6i Ohio St. 3d 319, 324. This Court has also held that even when a juvenile court has made a neglect determination, a different court may still make a best interest of the child determination in a habeas corpus action which sought the return of custody of the child. In Re Young /Noble v. Noble (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 9o. In Young, the Clark County Juvenile Court found in the neglect case that the child had not been willfully abandoned by his mother. Subsequently, the mother filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Second District Court of Appeals seeking that custody of her child be returned to her. The mother argued that the appellate could not deny the habeas writ since the Juvenile Court found that she did not willfally abandon her child in the neglect action on the basis of res judicata. This Court found that res judicata did not apply since the standard of proof in the neglect case (clear and convincing evidence) and the habeas petition (preponderance) are different. Thus, there is precedent for two separate courts making best interest determinations for the same child. 15
16 Likewise, the Third District Court of Appeals has held that res judicata does not apply as a bar to custody and visitation determinations where there is a showing of changed conditions. Volk v. Volk, Crawford App. No (May 27, 1983), 1983 WL 7274, qtg. In re Griffiths (1975), 47 Ohio App. 2d 238. Respondent submits that even if this Court were to find a res judicata bar, due to the obvious differences between legal custody and adoption, conditions have sufficiently changed to warrant a subsequent determination. There was no permanent placement option before the juvenile court when it made its determination. Accordingly, that decision should not be binding on a probate court which has a permanent placement option of adoption before it. Lastly, this Court has recently held that, `[w]hen an issue concerning parenting of a minor is pending in the juvenile court, a probate court must refrain from proceeding with the adoption of that child.' " In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249, 2oio-Ohio-3349>1f 8. In the instant case, once the legal custody determination was granted by the juvenile court, the probate court was free to proceed with the adoption proceedings. As such, Respondent may properly make its own determination as to whether adoption is in the best interest of the child. 16
17 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: THE REMEDY FOR A VIOLATION OF R.C IS THE APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL. AN INITIAL VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT DIVEST THE PROBATE COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE APPLICATION. While Respondent admits that the same attorney initially represented both the natural parent and the potential adoptive parents in violation of R.C , it is not clear that a violation of this statute divests the probate court of jurisdiction to hear the proceeding. As noted by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, R.C fails to specify what sanctions a court may impose upon finding a violation of the statute. In Re Adoption of Baby Doe, Summit County App. No (April 14, 1999), 1999 WL In Baby Doe, the Ninth District reversed the decision of the Summit County Probate Court, which held that upon a finding of a violation of R.C , the remedy was to exclude the prospective adoptive parent from ever adopting where the court found that the maternal grandmother of the child "arranged" this adoption. Id. supra. The Court further held that it was beyond the probate court's discretion to fashion a remedy for a violation of R.C Further, the parties are now being represented by counsel from different firms. Moreover, "absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, `a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.' " State ex rel. Powell v. Markus, 115 Ohio St.3d 219, 2007-Ohio-4793, 8, quoting State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 426,
18 Accordingly, this issue also appears to be one of first impression, and as such, falls within the discretion of the Respondent. CONCLUSION Respondent's actions in the case sub judice an exercise of judicial discretion that is authorized by law, and Respondent did not abuse his discretion nor completely disregard applicable law in rendering the decisions as alleged. As such, Relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to either a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN K. HALLER Prosecuting Attorney Greene County, Ohio By: Elizab6th A. Ellis ( ) Civil Division Chief Attorney for Judge Gano 55 Greene Street - First Floor Xenia, OH (937) (937) Fax 18
19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Answer of Respondents has been sent by regular U.S. Mail to the following parties this 18th day of September, 2012: Robert K. Hendrix, Attorney for Relator, 87 S. Progress Drive, Xenia, OH By: Elizabet A. Ellis ( ) Civil Division Chief Attorney for Judge Gano 55 Greene Street - First Floor Xenia, OH (937) (937) Fax 19
GDE 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 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 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 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 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. HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS ) Case No BOARD OF EDUCATION, Original Action in Mandamus and Relator,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HIGHLAND LOCAL SCHOOLS ) Case No. 2007-0643 BOARD OF EDUCATION, Original Action in Mandamus and Relator, Prohibition Arising From Cuyahoga County Common Pleas vs. Court Case
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 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 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 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 informationSupreme 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 informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, 2017 - Case No. 2017-0087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. Plaintiff-Appellee, : : On Appeal from the Hamilton County vs.
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 informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015-Ohio-2035.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101662 ELIZABETH POWELL vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Dillard Dept. Stores v. Ryan, 122 Ohio St.3d 241, 2009-Ohio-2683.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Dillard Dept. Stores v. Ryan, 122 Ohio St.3d 241, 2009-Ohio-2683.] THE STATE EX REL. DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, APPELLANT, v. RYAN, ADMR., APPELLEE, ET AL. [Cite as State ex rel.
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio- 662.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio- 662.] THE STATE EX REL. OFFICE OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SIROKI, CLERK,
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 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 information. I..i'ML OCT IZ CLERK OF GOURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant
. I..i'ML IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 12-1643 Plaintiff-Appellee, -vs- SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Ex. Rel. Darryl Powell, : Petitioner : v. : No. 116 M.D. 2007 : Submitted: September 3, 2010 Pennsylvania Department of : Corrections,
More information2017 CO 105. No. 16SC731, People in Interest of J.W. Children s Code Dependency or Neglect Proceedings Jurisdiction.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY
[Cite as Portsmouth v. Fraternal Order of Police Scioto Lodge 33, 2006-Ohio-4387.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY City of Portsmouth, : Plaintiff-Appellant/ : Cross-Appellee,
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 informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 31 December Appeal by respondent from order entered 14 April 2014 by
NO. COA14-647 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: BABY BOY Wake County No. 13 JT 69 Appeal by respondent from order entered 14 April 2014 by Judge Margaret Eagles
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 informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Green Tree Servicing L.L.C. v. Hoover, 2016-Ohio-1169.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC : JUDGES: : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee
More informationCITY OF CLEVELAND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU REGINALD E. BARNES
[Cite as Cleveland Parking Violations Bur. v. Barnes, 2010-Ohio-6164.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94502 CITY OF CLEVELAND PARKING
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Briefs November 24, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Briefs November 24, 2009 IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.A.H., a minor (d/o/b 06/06/03) Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-08-1670
More informationJENNA BUCKOSH, A MINOR, ET AL. WESTLAKE CITY SCHOOLS
[Cite as Buckosh v. Westlake City Schools, 2009-Ohio-1093.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91714 JENNA BUCKOSH, A MINOR, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
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 informationRWEV. E r r` ORIGI` AL SUP ^^^^ A, 3 CLERK OF COURT 3EME C URT OF OHIO JAN CLERK OF COURT SUPREME i:uur1 0F OHIO
ORIGI` AL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. 13 0 63 Edward Verhovec, Relator/Appellant vs. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT On Appeal from the Washington GENERAL DIVISION County Court
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 informationCITY OF CLEVELAND JEFFREY POSNER
[Cite as Cleveland v. Posner, 2010-Ohio-3091.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93893 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY
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 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 information[Cite as State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 113 Ohio St.3d 480, 2007-Ohio-2452.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 113 Ohio St.3d 480, 2007-Ohio-2452.] THE STATE EX REL. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OPERATORS LABOR COUNCIL, APPELLANT,
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 12, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 12, 2015 - Case No. 2015-1422 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. : CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN, : : Relator, : Case No. 2015-1422 : v. : Original
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : NO. 216 CR 2010 : 592 CR 2010 JOSEPH WOODHULL OLIVER, JR., : Defendant : Criminal Law
More informationFRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
[Cite as Donini v. Fraternal Order of Police, 2009-Ohio-5810.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY MARTY V. DONINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 08CA3251 vs. : FRATERNAL
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 649.] Workers compensation Award of temporary total disability by Industrial
THE STATE EX REL. KROGER COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 649.] Workers compensation Award
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO O RIGrNAL IN RE: H.V., adjudicated delinquent child. Case No. 2012-1688 On Appeal from the Lorain County Court of Appeals Ninth Appellate District C.A. CaseNos. 11CA010139
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Robert A. Neinast, CASE NO. 11-0435 -vs- Plaintiff - Petitioner On Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Appeals, Fifth District Case No. 2010-CA-011 Board of Trustees
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee, vs. MARK PICKENS, Petitioner-Appellant. : : : : : APPEAL NO. C-130004 TRIAL NO. B-0905088
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 18, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 18, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0303 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO R. LOTUS JUSTICE, et al., Relators, Case No. 2015-0303 v. UNITED STATES, et al., Respondents.
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES IN DSS CASES
CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES IN DSS CASES Maitri Mike Klinkosum Winston-Salem, NC The task of raising and preserving constitutional defenses is as important an endeavor in DSS cases as it is in criminal cases.
More informationSYLLABUS OF THE COURT
[Cite as In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008-Ohio-6810.] IN RE H.F. ET AL. [Cite as In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008-Ohio-6810.] Juvenile court Appeal An appeal of a juvenile court s adjudication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as Green v. State, 2010-Ohio-4371.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO SAM GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee. APPEAL
More informationAppellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/08/2011 Page: 1 CASE NO
Appellate Case: 10-6239 Document: 01018582344 Date Filed: 02/08/2011 Page: 1 CASE NO. 10-6239 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER YANCEY, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY THOMAS
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Bosl v. First Fin. Invest. Fund I, 2011-Ohio-1938.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95464 GREGORY J. BOSL PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 09CR1012
[Cite as State v. Blanton, 2012-Ohio-3276.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24295 v. : T.C. NO. 09CR1012 GREGORY E. BLANTON : (Criminal
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as Price v. Carter Lumber Co., 2010-Ohio-4328.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) GERALD PRICE C.A. No. 24991 Appellant v. CARTER LUMBER CO.,
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 informationWILKINS, Appellant, WILKINSON et al., Appellees. [Cite as Wilkins v. Wilkinson, 157 Ohio App.3d 209, 2004-Ohio-2530.] Court of Appeals of Ohio,
[Cite as Wilkins v. Wilkinson, 157 Ohio App.3d 209, 2004-Ohio-2530.] WILKINS, Appellant, v. WILKINSON et al., Appellees. [Cite as Wilkins v. Wilkinson, 157 Ohio App.3d 209, 2004-Ohio-2530.] Court of Appeals
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY. v. O P I N I O N. CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
[Cite as State v. Wilhite, 2007-Ohio-116.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 14-06-16 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. O P I N I O N KIRK A. WILHITE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff/Appellant : CASE NO CVF 01712
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO S-THREE, LLC, : Plaintiff/Appellant : CASE NO. 2013 CVF 01712 vs. : Judge McBride BATAVIA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : ZONING APPEALS : DECISION/ENTRY Defendant/Appellee
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ORlGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR * Case No. 2012-0897 THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-30T1, * MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH On Appeal from the
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Lawrence, 2016-Ohio-7626.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. PHILLIP H. LAWRENCE Defendant-Appellant Appellate
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 information[Cite as State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535, Ohio-4609.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535, 2008- Ohio-4609.] THE STATE EX REL. CULGAN, APPELLANT, v. MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES.
More informationMAY MARCIA J MEII4GEL, CLERK SUPREME COUR'f OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appellee, KEVIN JOHNSON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. 2006-2154 -vs- Appellee, On Appeal from the Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District uutier county, unio KEVIN JOHNSON Appellant. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
CHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM This chapter discusses the various components of the AEDPA deference statute, including... The meaning of the term merits adjudication, The clearly established
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. CHRISTOPHER A. MOBLEY : T.C. Case No. 01-CR-3064
[Cite as State v. Mobley, 2002-Ohio-5535.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : vs. : C.A. Case No. 19176 CHRISTOPHER A. MOBLEY : T.C. Case No. 01-CR-3064
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 informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Appeal Dismissed, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00235-CV ALI CHOUDHRI, Appellant V. LATIF
More informationAdamsky, Appellant, v. Buckeye Local School District, Appellee. [Cite as Adamsky v. Buckeye Local School Dist. (1995), Ohio St.3d.
Adamsky, Appellant, v. Buckeye Local School District, Appellee. [Cite as Adamsky v. Buckeye Local School Dist. (1995), Ohio St.3d.] Schools -- Tort liability -- Statute of limitations -- R.C. 2744.04(A)
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant:
[Cite as State v. Jester, 2004-Ohio-3611.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83520 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION WILLIE LEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2013 CT SCT 2013-CT SCT. MILTON TROTTER, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee
E-Filed Document Apr 4 2016 16:50:10 2013-CT-00547-SCT Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2013 CT-00547-SCT 2013-CT-00547-SCT MILTON TROTTER, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee BRIEF
More information[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN
USCA Case #10-5203 Document #1374021 Filed 05/16/2012 Page 1 of 5 [ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT x MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, Appellant,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Morana v. Foley, 2015-Ohio-5254.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102572 CECILIA MORANA PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JASON W. FOLEY
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Sharp, 2009-Ohio-1854.] COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee John W. Wise, J. Julie A. Edwards,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Remy, 2003-Ohio-2600.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY STATE OF OHIO/ : CITY OF CHILLICOTHE, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 02CA2664 : v. : :
More informationProposal by Judge Conway to amend various juvenile rules to conform to P.A On 9-17-
Proposal by Judge Conway to amend various juvenile rules to conform to P.A. 18-31. On 9-17- 18, RC tabled the matter to its 10-15-18 meeting in order to review the proposed changes fully. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
More informationMOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Case 4:15-cr-00001-BSM Document 81 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) No. 4:15CR00001-1 BSM ) MICHAEL A. MAGGIO
More informationCASE NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COLUMBUS, OHIO STATE OF OHIO9. Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOUGLAS EDWARD HADDIX, Defendant-Appellant.
^ CASE NO. 2012-1762 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COLUMBUS, OHIO STATE OF OHIO9 Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOUGLAS EDWARD HADDIX, Defendant-Appellant. ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE OHIO COURT OF
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 informationAppellee Opinion No OPINION
HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Appellant HARFORD COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COUNCIL, BEFORE THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee Opinion No. 05-24 OPINION The Harford County Board of Education
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief July 14, 2005
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief July 14, 2005 JAMES C. BREER v. QUENTON WHITE A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lauderdale County No. 13,049 The Honorable Martha B. Brasfield,
More informationAppellant, : Case No. 09CA8 LANDERS, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Landers, 188 Ohio App.3d 786, 2010-Ohio-3709.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEIGS COUNTY The STATE OF OHIO, : Appellant, : Case No. 09CA8 v. : LANDERS, :
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Cleveland v. Cleveland Assoc. of Rescue Emps., 2011-Ohio-4263.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96325 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More information[Cite as Nextel West Corp. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2004-Ohio-2943.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Nextel West Corp. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2004-Ohio-2943.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Nextel West Corp., : No. 03AP-625 Appellant-Appellee, : (C.P.C.
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-6553.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARLISLE, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-6553.] Sentencing Trial court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY
[Cite as Ross Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Roop, 2011-Ohio-1748.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY : COMMISSIONERS OF ROSS : Case No. 10CA3161 COUNTY, OHIO,
More informationJAMES E. HOLT. Plaintiff. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES, et al. Defendants Case No Judge Alan C. Travis DECISION
[Cite as Holt v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2010-Ohio-853.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D08-3494 Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationwith one count of Aggravated Murder, O.R.C (B), and two counts of
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) SS. COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) CR. 184772 ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ) JUDGMENT ENTRY ) STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff ) ) Vs. ) ) WILLIE LEE JESTER,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PNC Bank, National Association successor Case No. 12-1182 in interest to National City Real Estate Services LLC successor by merger to National City Mortgage, Inc., fka National
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MARCH 13, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-001308-MR US BANK AS CUSTODIAN FOR SASS MUNI V DTR, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WACHOVIA AS
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as Summit Cty. Fiscal Officer v. Estate of Barnett, 2009-Ohio-2456.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) SUMMIT COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER C.A. No.
More informationConstitutional Framework for Non-Removal Parents
Constitutional Framework for Non-Removal Parents Rick Croutharmel August 16, 2012 Rick Croutharmel August 16, 2012 Terminology Non-Removal = Non-Custodial Non-Offending = did not do anything or fail to
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
E-Filed Document Sep 16 2014 12:20:19 2013-CA-01986 Pages: 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RAVEL WILLIAMS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CA-01986 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) of VETERANS AFFAIRS, ) ) Appellant, ) v. ) No. SC92541 ) KARLA O. BORESI, Chief ) Administrative Law Judge, ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA
[Cite as U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Golf Course Mgt., Inc., 2009-Ohio-2807.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : Plaintiff-Appellee,
More information