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 Supreme Court·Decided October 1, 1975·No. No. 75-253·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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

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).

335 N.E.2d 700 (State ex rel. Kopchak v. Lime) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Crime Reporting, Inc. v. McCord & Akamine, L.L.P.
895 N.E.2d 255 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Hughes v. Calabrese
2002 Ohio 2217 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
State Ex Rel. O'Donnell v. Vogelgesang
632 N.E.2d 1367 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1993)
James W. Childs v. Van Wert County, Ohio
959 F.2d 233 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Shuff
423 N.E.2d 417 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981)
Hooper v. Seventh Urban, Inc.
434 N.E.2d 1367 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1980)