State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office
This text of 942 N.E.2d 387 (State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office) 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.
Opinions
In Mandamus. On respondents’ motion to supplement their motion to stay or in the alternative, motion for protective order, it is ordered that the motion to supplement is granted.
On respondents’ supplemented motion to stay the case pending the resolution of State v. Cafaro, Mahoning C.P. No. 2010 CR 800A-I or, in the alternative, motion for protective order filed by respondent Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney Paul J. Gains and Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys Linette Stratford and Gina Bricker, it is ordered that the motion is denied.
On respondents’ motion for extension of time to respond to discovery, it is ordered that the motion is denied.
On respondents’ motion for a protective order to limit the depositions to stenographic means only, or in the alternative, to limit dissemination and use of the depositions, it is ordered that the motion is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
942 N.E.2d 387, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mccaffrey-v-mahoning-cty-prosecutors-office-ohio-2011.