State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty.

664 N.E.2d 1292, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1495
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty.. Read the opinion of the Court — 75 Ohio St. 3d 374
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 29, 1996·No. 95-675, 95-677, 95-686 and 95-843·Published

Opinion

In Mandamus. In our opinion in this cause dated March 6, 1996, we stated, sua sponte, 75 Ohio St.3d 374, at 379-380, 662 N.E.2d 334, at 338-339:

“ * * * Relators’ counsel are instructed to submit bills and documentation in support of their requests for attorney fees, in accordance with the guidelines in DR 2-106.”

It appearing that relators had not requested attorney fees and that relators do not intend to submit documentation of such fees, the court strikes the above order granting relators leave to submit bills and documentation.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Stratton, J., not participating.

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

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 664 N.E.2d 1292, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1495 (Ohio 1996).

664 N.E.2d 1292 (State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton County
662 N.E.2d 334 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)