France v. Mattingly

Ohio Supreme Court

France v. Mattingly

914 N.E.2d 1057, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1415

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 12, 2009·No. 2009-1818·Published

Opinion

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of the complaint and relator’s motion for immediate stay,

It is ordered by the court that the motion for stay is denied. It is further ordered that upon consideration pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), this cause is dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and Cupp, JJ., dissent and would await the filing of a response.

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

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of the complaint and relator’s motion for immediate stay,

It is ordered by the court that the motion for stay is denied. It is further ordered that upon consideration pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), this cause is dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and Cupp, JJ., dissent and would await the filing of a response.

France v. Mattingly, 914 N.E.2d 1057, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1415 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

914 N.E.2d 1057 (France v. Mattingly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.