State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections

660 N.E.2d 740, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1520, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 3796

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

Docket96-369

StatusPublished

This text of 660 N.E.2d 740 (State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections) 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

State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 660 N.E.2d 740, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1520, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 3796 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

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.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the respondent is prohibited from proceeding to conduct a hearing or engage in further proceeding related to the protests against the candidacies of relators, pending disposition of this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file their merit briefs on or before February 20,1996. No extensions of time for the filing of briefs will be permitted.

[1521]*1521Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur and would also invite the Secretary of State to intervene. Pfeifer, J., concurs in part because he would not stay the hearing.

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.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the respondent is prohibited from proceeding to conduct a hearing or engage in further proceeding related to the protests against the candidacies of relators, pending disposition of this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file their merit briefs on or before February 20,1996. No extensions of time for the filing of briefs will be permitted.

[1521]*1521Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur and would also invite the Secretary of State to intervene. Pfeifer, J., concurs in part because he would not stay the hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 N.E.2d 740, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1520, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 3796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-harbarger-v-cuyahoga-cty-bd-of-elections-ohio-1996.