Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Baran v. Fuerst

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1990No. 89-1176PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Per curiam

Baran contends that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint. For the reasons that follow, we agree.

Baran first argues that the judgment entered below is invalid because only two judges disposed of the motion to dismiss. He maintains that pursuant to R.C. 2501.012(A), three judges must decide a case. In part, this statute provides that “[i]n the eighth district, any three judges shall comprise the court of appeals in the hearing and disposition of cases * * *.” See, also, Section 3(A), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, which provides, in part, that “* * * [i]n districts…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Bush v. SpurlockOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civil Service CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Petrey v. SimonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State ex rel. Scanlon v. DetersOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civil Service Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. The V Cos. v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Thompson v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994

50 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