State ex rel. Pepple v. Montgomery

767 N.E.2d 272, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1440, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 1040
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 29, 2002·No. 2002-0415·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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 respondents’ motion for stay of discovery pending ruling on motion to dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay of discovery be, and hereby is, granted.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

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

State ex rel. Pepple v. Montgomery, 767 N.E.2d 272, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1440, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 1040 (Ohio 2002).

767 N.E.2d 272 (State ex rel. Pepple v. Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Adlaka v. Giannini, Unpublished Decision (9-1-2006)
2006 Ohio 4611 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)