State ex rel. Rittner v. Bechtel

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Rittner v. Bechtel

139 Ohio St. 3d 1469

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 2014

Docket2014-0652

StatusPublished

This text of 139 Ohio St. 3d 1469 (State ex rel. Rittner v. Bechtel) 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. Rittner v. Bechtel, 139 Ohio St. 3d 1469 (Ohio 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. On S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 determination, cause dismissed.

Upon consideration of relator’s motions for leave to file all pleadings and documents handwritten according to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.09(A)(1)(e), to order respondent to provide relator with a copy of the trust account or to waive requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), for order to waive all service requirements beyond the pleading stage by relator, under threat of physical and irreparable injury by Kevin Jones, Warden, and to order clerk to file S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(B)(2) “memorandum” together with relator’s objections, it is ordered by the court that the motions are denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and French, JJ., concur. Kennedy and O’Neill, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

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

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. On S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 determination, cause dismissed.

Upon consideration of relator’s motions for leave to file all pleadings and documents handwritten according to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.09(A)(1)(e), to order respondent to provide relator with a copy of the trust account or to waive requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), for order to waive all service requirements beyond the pleading stage by relator, under threat of physical and irreparable injury by Kevin Jones, Warden, and to order clerk to file S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(B)(2) “memorandum” together with relator’s objections, it is ordered by the court that the motions are denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and French, JJ., concur. Kennedy and O’Neill, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 Ohio St. 3d 1469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-rittner-v-bechtel-ohio-2014.