Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hine

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1997No. 1997-1153PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent moved to stay disciplinary proceedings in Ohio because she filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States asserting First Amendment rights. However, under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(3), the only ground for a stay of reciprocal discipline proceedings in Ohio is a showing that the sanction has been stayed in the disciplining state. Not only did respondent fail to present evidence that the disciplinary proceedings in Oklahoma have been stayed, but her petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 6, 1997.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. HineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MeenenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. GrahamOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. GrahamOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. MeenenOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API