Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson

2005 Ohio 2424, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1553

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 20, 2005

Docket2005-0398

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2005 Ohio 2424 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson) 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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson, 2005 Ohio 2424, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1553 (Ohio 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter is pending before the court upon the filing on February 28, 2005, of the report and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline regarding respondent, Michael Troy Watson. On April 18, 2005, respondent filed a motion to show cause why E. Yvonne [1554]*1554Harris should not be held in contempt for failure to appear at an October 26, 2004, hearing. Ms. Harris filed a response on April 28, 2005. On April 18, 2005, respondent also filed a motion to show cause why Bruce Hodge should not be found in contempt for failure to appear at an October 26, 2004, hearing. Mr. Hodge did not file a response. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions of respondent be, and hereby are, denied.

Resnick, J., dissents.

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

This matter is pending before the court upon the filing on February 28, 2005, of the report and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline regarding respondent, Michael Troy Watson. On April 18, 2005, respondent filed a motion to show cause why E. Yvonne [1554]*1554Harris should not be held in contempt for failure to appear at an October 26, 2004, hearing. Ms. Harris filed a response on April 28, 2005. On April 18, 2005, respondent also filed a motion to show cause why Bruce Hodge should not be found in contempt for failure to appear at an October 26, 2004, hearing. Mr. Hodge did not file a response. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions of respondent be, and hereby are, denied.

Resnick, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2005 Ohio 2424, 105 Ohio St. 3d 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-watson-ohio-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack