In re Application of Stineman

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Application of Stineman

556 N.E.2d 184, 52 Ohio St. 3d 88, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 269

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 27, 1990·No. No. 89-1979·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and its recommendation. Accordingly, applicant’s application for admission without examination is hereby denied. However, applicant is permitted to reapply for admission. He shall undergo further character and fitness examination and, if approved, be required to take the Ohio bar examination.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Stephenson, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Earl E. Stephenson, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for Wright, J.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings and its recommendation. Accordingly, applicant’s application for admission without examination is hereby denied. However, applicant is permitted to reapply for admission. He shall undergo further character and fitness examination and, if approved, be required to take the Ohio bar examination.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Stephenson, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Earl E. Stephenson, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for Wright, J.

In re Application of Stineman, 556 N.E.2d 184, 52 Ohio St. 3d 88, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 269 (Ohio 1990).

Pincite

556 N.E.2d 184 (In re Application of Stineman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related