State ex rel. Whitaker v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Whitaker v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court

934 N.E.2d 350, 126 Ohio St. 3d 1576

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 2010

Docket2010-1127

StatusPublished

This text of 934 N.E.2d 350 (State ex rel. Whitaker v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court) 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. Whitaker v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court, 934 N.E.2d 350, 126 Ohio St. 3d 1576 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In Mandamus. On respondent’s answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings and relator’s motion to amend complaint. Motion to amend complaint denied. Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted. Cause dismissed.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Brown, C.J., dissents and would grant the motion to amend complaint and defer ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

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

In Mandamus. On respondent’s answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings and relator’s motion to amend complaint. Motion to amend complaint denied. Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted. Cause dismissed.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Brown, C.J., dissents and would grant the motion to amend complaint and defer ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 N.E.2d 350, 126 Ohio St. 3d 1576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-whitaker-v-scioto-cty-common-pleas-court-ohio-2010.