France v. Mattingly

Ohio Supreme Court

France v. Mattingly

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

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 12, 2009

Docket2009-1818

StatusPublished

This text of 914 N.E.2d 1057 (France v. Mattingly) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

914 N.E.2d 1057, 123 Ohio St. 3d 1415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/france-v-mattingly-ohio-2009.