State ex rel. Nicastro v. Stralka

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Nicastro v. Stralka

703 N.E.2d 1281, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1456, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 47

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 1999

Docket98-2710

StatusPublished

This text of 703 N.E.2d 1281 (State ex rel. Nicastro v. Stralka) 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. Nicastro v. Stralka, 703 N.E.2d 1281, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1456, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 47 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Douglas, Acting C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs because prohibition is an improper remedy. Cook, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. Moyer, C.J., not participating.

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

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Douglas, Acting C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs because prohibition is an improper remedy. Cook, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. Moyer, C.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 N.E.2d 1281, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1456, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-nicastro-v-stralka-ohio-1999.