State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley

685 N.E.2d 1247, 80 Ohio St. 3d 292

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1420

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 685 N.E.2d 1247 (State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley) 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. Keener v. Village of Amberley, 685 N.E.2d 1247, 80 Ohio St. 3d 292 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We grant respondents’ motion and dismiss the cause. Relators failed to name the proper respondents in this action, and the named respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the requested acts. See Section IV, Article III of the Amberley Charter; R.C. 121.22(B); see, also, Krash v. Alliance (July 2, 1990), Stark App. Nos. CA-8046 and CA-8058, unreported, 1990 WL 93914. In addition, respondents’ motion to dismiss alerted relators to this problem, ie., failure to name the village council or its members as parties, even though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members. Relators, however, did not specifically oppose this part of respondents’ dismissal motion in their motion to strike or seek leave to amend their complaint. See, generally, 1 Klein & Darling, Baldwin’s Ohio Practice, Civil Practice (1997) 872, Section AT 19-2, [294]*294citing Moore v. Benjamin (Mar. 27, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50316, unreported, 1986 WL 3718.¹

Motion granted and cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We grant respondents’ motion and dismiss the cause. Relators failed to name the proper respondents in this action, and the named respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the requested acts. See Section IV, Article III of the Amberley Charter; R.C. 121.22(B); see, also, Krash v. Alliance (July 2, 1990), Stark App. Nos. CA-8046 and CA-8058, unreported, 1990 WL 93914. In addition, respondents’ motion to dismiss alerted relators to this problem, ie., failure to name the village council or its members as parties, even though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members. Relators, however, did not specifically oppose this part of respondents’ dismissal motion in their motion to strike or seek leave to amend their complaint. See, generally, 1 Klein & Darling, Baldwin’s Ohio Practice, Civil Practice (1997) 872, Section AT 19-2, [294]*294citing Moore v. Benjamin (Mar. 27, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50316, unreported, 1986 WL 3718.¹

Motion granted and cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 N.E.2d 1247, 80 Ohio St. 3d 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-keener-v-village-of-amberley-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack