Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1997No. 97-1420PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We grant respondents’ motion and dismiss the cause. Relators failed to name the proper respondents in this action, and the named respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the requested acts. See Section IV, Article III of the Amberley Charter; R.C. 121.22(B); see, also, Krash v. Alliance (July 2, 1990), Stark App. Nos. CA-8046 and CA-8058, unreported, 1990 WL 93914. In addition, respondents’ motion to dismiss alerted relators to this problem, ie., failure to name the village council or its members as parties, even though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members.…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Sherrills v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State ex rel. Becker v. City of EastlakeOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State ex rel. Becker v. EastlakeOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State ex rel. Ross v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  5. State ex rel. Sherrills v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API