State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch

646 N.E.2d 180, 71 Ohio St. 3d 1486
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 1995·No. 95-365·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In Quo Warranto. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of quo warranto. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 27,1995, thaUan alternative writ be, and the same is hereby, granted, and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present on or before March 20, 1995, unless, upon good cause shown, the time is extended by the court; relator shall file his brief within ten days after the filing of evidence; respondent shall file his brief within twenty days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within five days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

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

State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch, 646 N.E.2d 180, 71 Ohio St. 3d 1486 (Ohio 1995).

646 N.E.2d 180 (State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch
1995 Ohio 156 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)