State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Burney

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Burney

787 N.E.2d 1235, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1572

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 9, 2003

Docket2003-0783

StatusPublished

This text of 787 N.E.2d 1235 (State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Burney) 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. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Burney, 787 N.E.2d 1235, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1572 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s motion for immediate relief and expedited consideration,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be, and hereby is, granted and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the date of this entry; relator shall file its brief within 10 days after the filing of evidence; respondent shall file her brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 5 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the portion of respondent’s order the relator seeks to prohibit is stayed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(6).

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs but would leave the judge’s order in place and not stay it. O’Connor, J., would grant a peremptory writ. Cook, 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. Upon consideration of relator’s motion for immediate relief and expedited consideration,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be, and hereby is, granted and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the date of this entry; relator shall file its brief within 10 days after the filing of evidence; respondent shall file her brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 5 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the portion of respondent’s order the relator seeks to prohibit is stayed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(6).

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs but would leave the judge’s order in place and not stay it. O’Connor, J., would grant a peremptory writ. Cook, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 N.E.2d 1235, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-plain-dealer-publishing-co-v-burney-ohio-2003.