State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections

598 N.E.2d 1167, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1414, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 4159

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 24, 1992·No. 92-1676·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition regarding an expedited election matter and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration of respondents’ motion to dismiss and the motion of Guy C. Guckenberger to intervene as a respondent,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that respondents’ motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, overruled.

Sweeney, J., dissents. Douglas, J., dissents and would grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 3501.11.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion of Guy C. Guckenberger to intervene be, and the same is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that a writ of prohibition be, and the same is hereby, denied, consistent with the opinion to follow.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., would dismiss this cause.

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 regarding an expedited election matter and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration of respondents’ motion to dismiss and the motion of Guy C. Guckenberger to intervene as a respondent,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that respondents’ motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, overruled.

Sweeney, J., dissents. Douglas, J., dissents and would grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 3501.11.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion of Guy C. Guckenberger to intervene be, and the same is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that a writ of prohibition be, and the same is hereby, denied, consistent with the opinion to follow.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., would dismiss this cause.

State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 598 N.E.2d 1167, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1414, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 4159 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

598 N.E.2d 1167 (State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related