Home/Ohio Supreme Court/State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff

State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff

947 N.E.2d 680, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1496
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff. Read the opinion of the Court — 132 Ohio St. 3d 481 →
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 20, 2011·No. 2011-0132·Published

Opinion

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition.

Upon review of the joint submission of evidence, it is evident that Cynthia Reed Eddy has not filed a timely motion for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. 1.2. Therefore, it is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that Cynthia Reed Eddy is stricken from the evidence for failure to comply with S.Ct-Prac.R. 1.2 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(6)(a)-(e). It is further ordered that she is prohibited from participating in or appearing on any future filings in this case.

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

State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 947 N.E.2d 680, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1496 (Ohio 2011).

947 N.E.2d 680 (State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.