State ex rel. Randles v. Hill

Randles argues that he sustained his burden of proof for a writ of quo warranto to issue and that, even if his evidence is insufficient, he should nevertheless prevail because, under Civ.R. 8(D), the allegations in his complaint were admitted by Hill’s failure to answer. Randles further argues that the court of appeals erred by overruling his motion to strike Hill’s merit brief.1

For the reasons that follow, we agree that Randles sustained his burden of proof and that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested writ of quo warranto. We base our decision, however, on the evidence in the…