State ex rel. Kopchak v. Lime

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Kopchak v. Lime

335 N.E.2d 700, 44 Ohio St. 2d 3, 73 Ohio Op. 2d 2, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 567

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1975

DocketNo. 75-253

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 335 N.E.2d 700 (State ex rel. Kopchak v. Lime) 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. Kopchak v. Lime, 335 N.E.2d 700, 44 Ohio St. 2d 3, 73 Ohio Op. 2d 2, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 567 (Ohio 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint for writ of mandamus filed in this court is based on the same facts, seeks the same relief, is otherwise virtually identical to the earlier complaint filed in the Court of Appeals, and involves the same parties, except that only one of the three relators who brought the action in the Court of Appeals brings the present action. The issues were fully argued and briefed before the Court of Appeals. That court’s dismissal of relators’ complaint went to the substance of the controversy. Its dismissal of the complaint and denial of the writ, without any qualifying language in its order, constitutes an adjudication on the merits. See Civ. R. 41 (B) (2).

Accordingly, respondents’ motion for summary judgment is sustained, and the cause is dismissed.

Cause dismissed.

O’Neill, C. J., Hebbeet, CokrigaN, StebN, Celebbezze, W. BbowN and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The complaint for writ of mandamus filed in this court is based on the same facts, seeks the same relief, is otherwise virtually identical to the earlier complaint filed in the Court of Appeals, and involves the same parties, except that only one of the three relators who brought the action in the Court of Appeals brings the present action. The issues were fully argued and briefed before the Court of Appeals. That court’s dismissal of relators’ complaint went to the substance of the controversy. Its dismissal of the complaint and denial of the writ, without any qualifying language in its order, constitutes an adjudication on the merits. See Civ. R. 41 (B) (2).

Accordingly, respondents’ motion for summary judgment is sustained, and the cause is dismissed.

Cause dismissed.

O’Neill, C. J., Hebbeet, CokrigaN, StebN, Celebbezze, W. BbowN and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 N.E.2d 700, 44 Ohio St. 2d 3, 73 Ohio Op. 2d 2, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kopchak-v-lime-ohio-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack