Jones v. Suster.

699 N.E.2d 950, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2716
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 24, 1998
Docket97-1231
StatusPublished

This text of 699 N.E.2d 950 (Jones v. Suster.) 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
Jones v. Suster., 699 N.E.2d 950, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2716 (Ohio 1998).

Opinion

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

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for oral hearing be, and hereby is, denied.

F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs because the request is moot. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs because Visiting Judge Knepper has received and reviewed the audiotapes of the January 13,1998 oral arguments. Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion. Richard W. Knepper, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Pfeifer, J.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 N.E.2d 950, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-suster-ohio-1998.