Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Layshock v. Moorehead

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 2009No. 2009-T-0076PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} This quo warranto action is presently before this court for final disposition on the merits, based upon the parties’ competing summary-judgment motions and their partial stipulations of fact. Upon reviewing the parties’ legal arguments and various evidentiary materials, we hold that relator, Patrick D. Lay-shock, has established that he is entitled to continue to hold the position of mayor of the city of Newton Falls, Ohio. Therefore, the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is justified to enjoin respondent, Thomas Moorehead, from attempting to exercise the powers of that public office.

{¶…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. City of Middletown v. City Commission of MiddletownOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Davis v. Marion County EngineerOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. City of Parma v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Bischof v. Mentor Exempted Village School, 2007-L-056 (11-16-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. State Ex Rel. Tietje v. CollettOhio Supreme Court · 1941

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Layshock v. MooreheadOhio Supreme Court · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API