Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Smith v. Frost

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1995No. 95-1707PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Per curiam

As a preliminary matter, the village has filed a motion to intervene. The village claims that it is entitled to intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A)(2), because it possesses “an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and [it] is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect that interest” and the village’s interest is not “adequately represented by the existing parties.” The village has an interest relating to the property which is the subject of the action, since it…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Seikbert v. WilkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Adams v. GusweilerOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State ex rel. Ballard v. O'DonnellOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State ex rel. Enyart v. O'NeillOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. SchroederOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Litty v. LeskovyanskyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. City of Lorain v. StewartOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. One Energy Ents., L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019

18 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