State ex rel. Van Landingham v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Van Landingham v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections

764 N.E.2d 1038, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1509, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 788

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 21, 2002

Docket02-392

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 764 N.E.2d 1038 (State ex rel. Van Landingham v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections) 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. Van Landingham v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 764 N.E.2d 1038, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1509, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 788 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus regarding an expedited election matter. On March 12, 2002, respondents filed an answer to the complaint and on March 13, 2002, respondents filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) prescribes that a motion for judgment on the pleadings, if one is filed, shall be filed at the same time an answer is filed,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for judgment on the pleadings be, and hereby is, stricken as untimely.

It further appears from the records of this court that relator has not filed a merit brief, due no later than March 18, 2002, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has faded to prosecute this case with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

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

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

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus regarding an expedited election matter. On March 12, 2002, respondents filed an answer to the complaint and on March 13, 2002, respondents filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) prescribes that a motion for judgment on the pleadings, if one is filed, shall be filed at the same time an answer is filed,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for judgment on the pleadings be, and hereby is, stricken as untimely.

It further appears from the records of this court that relator has not filed a merit brief, due no later than March 18, 2002, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has faded to prosecute this case with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 N.E.2d 1038, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1509, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-van-landingham-v-lucas-cty-bd-of-elections-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack