Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Mancino v. Campbell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1993No. 92-1836PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

“In order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted * * *, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. (Conley v. Gibson [1957], 355 U.S. 41 [78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80], followed).” O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753, syllabus.

We hold that Mancino can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Mancino essentially argues that Campbell is patently…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Zakany v. ZakanyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State ex rel. Tollis v. Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Burt v. DodgeOhio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. v. RussoOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State ex rel. Mason v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State ex rel. Mancino v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  4. State ex rel. Wellington v. KoblyOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Meek v. GenevaOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

11 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