State ex rel. F. J. Heer Printing Co. v. Marshall

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. F. J. Heer Printing Co. v. Marshall

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 119

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 21, 1962·No. No. 37944·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case has been submitted on the motion of The Columbus Blank Book Company for leave to intervene, and on the motion of the respondents to dismiss the case.

[120]*120The motion for leave to intervene is sustained.

The relator being afforded an adequate remedyjn the ordinary course of the law, the motion to dismiss the case is sustained.

Case dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Radcliff, O’Neill and Griffith, JJ., concur. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

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

Per Curiam.

This case has been submitted on the motion of The Columbus Blank Book Company for leave to intervene, and on the motion of the respondents to dismiss the case.

[120]*120The motion for leave to intervene is sustained.

The relator being afforded an adequate remedyjn the ordinary course of the law, the motion to dismiss the case is sustained.

Case dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Radcliff, O’Neill and Griffith, JJ., concur. Radcliff, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

State ex rel. F. J. Heer Printing Co. v. Marshall, 174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 119 (Ohio 1962).

Pincite

174 Ohio St. (N.S.) 119 (State ex rel. F. J. Heer Printing Co. v. Marshall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.