Ahmed v. Court of Appeals

Ohio Supreme Court

Ahmed v. Court of Appeals

802 N.E.2d 150, 101 Ohio St. 3d 1417

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 21, 2004

Docket2003-1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 802 N.E.2d 150 (Ahmed v. Court of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmed v. Court of Appeals, 802 N.E.2d 150, 101 Ohio St. 3d 1417 (Ohio 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In Prohibition. On answer of respondent Hon. William Harris to original complaint, motion to dismiss of Judges of Seventh District Court of Appeals et al. to original complaint, motion to strike motion to dismiss of Judges of Seventh Appellate District Court of Appeals et al., etc., motion to dismiss of Benson A. Wolman and Eric Costine, motion for leave to file a response to answer of respondent William Harris, motion to strike answer of respondent William Hams, answer of respondent Grace L. Hoffman, motion for judgment on pleadings of Hon. William Harris, motion to strike answer of Grace Hoffman for lack of standing as respondent, motion to strike motion for judgment on the pleadings of Hon. William Harris, and motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Motions to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed. All other motions are denied as moot.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Prohibition. On answer of respondent Hon. William Harris to original complaint, motion to dismiss of Judges of Seventh District Court of Appeals et al. to original complaint, motion to strike motion to dismiss of Judges of Seventh Appellate District Court of Appeals et al., etc., motion to dismiss of Benson A. Wolman and Eric Costine, motion for leave to file a response to answer of respondent William Harris, motion to strike answer of respondent William Hams, answer of respondent Grace L. Hoffman, motion for judgment on pleadings of Hon. William Harris, motion to strike answer of Grace Hoffman for lack of standing as respondent, motion to strike motion for judgment on the pleadings of Hon. William Harris, and motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Motions to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed. All other motions are denied as moot.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 N.E.2d 150, 101 Ohio St. 3d 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-court-of-appeals-ohio-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack