Legal Opinion

In re Tunstall

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Decided April 14, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HURD, J.

This case comes before this court at this time upon the motion of the respondents for an order requiring the complainants to elect, and to make their petition for removal definite and certain in forty-four particular respects set forth in the motion at some considerable length.

In order that there may be a clear understanding of the rulings made herein it should be stated that this is a petition for removal of the respondents as members of the board of education of the Parma School District, brought under favor of §§10-1 and 10-2, GC, and kindred sections of the General Code.

T…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ragozine v. ShakerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. Ragozine v. ShakerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. 2,867 Signers of Petition for Removal of MacK v. MacKOhio Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. In re Removal of LeachJackson County Court of Common Pleas · 1940
  5. State Ex Rel. Ragozine v. Shaker, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API