State ex rel. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Fisher

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Fisher

644 N.E.2d 409, 71 Ohio St. 3d 1447, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 3439

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 1995

Docket94-2407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 644 N.E.2d 409 (State ex rel. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Fisher) 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. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Fisher, 644 N.E.2d 409, 71 Ohio St. 3d 1447, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 3439 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition. Upon consideration of respondent Lee Fisher’s motion to dismiss, relator’s motion to strike, and the motion to intervene by William Cargile,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, denied, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion to strike be, and hereby is, denied, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to intervene by William Cargile be, and hereby is, granted, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, consolidated with Supreme Court case No. 94-2420, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be granted, [1448]*1448effective January 18,1995, and the following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present on or before February 7, 1995, unless, upon good cause shown, the time is extended by the court; relator shall file its brief within ten days of the filing of evidence; respondents shall file their brief within twenty days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within five days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the proceedings in the case, DLZ Corporation et al. v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services, App. Nos. 94APE08-1181 through 1186, be and hereby are, stayed pending further order of this court.

Cook, J., dissents.

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

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition. Upon consideration of respondent Lee Fisher’s motion to dismiss, relator’s motion to strike, and the motion to intervene by William Cargile,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, denied, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion to strike be, and hereby is, denied, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to intervene by William Cargile be, and hereby is, granted, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be, and hereby is, consolidated with Supreme Court case No. 94-2420, effective January 18, 1995.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be granted, [1448]*1448effective January 18,1995, and the following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present on or before February 7, 1995, unless, upon good cause shown, the time is extended by the court; relator shall file its brief within ten days of the filing of evidence; respondents shall file their brief within twenty days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within five days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

Cook, J., dissents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the proceedings in the case, DLZ Corporation et al. v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services, App. Nos. 94APE08-1181 through 1186, be and hereby are, stayed pending further order of this court.

Cook, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 N.E.2d 409, 71 Ohio St. 3d 1447, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 3439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-optimum-technology-inc-v-fisher-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack