Legal Opinion

McAuley v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1998No. 97-1341PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Per curiam

In his propositions of law, McAuley asserts that the court of appeals erred in sua sponte dismissing his complaint for a writ of prohibition. Sua sponte dismissal without notice is appropriate only if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1292. The court of appeals here did not give the parties prior notice of its intention to dismiss and the opportunity to respond. Therefore, we must determine whether McAuley’s claims are frivolous or obviously…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. White v. JunkinOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Logsdon v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Mayer v. HensonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. Mayer v. HensonOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Duran v. KelseyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Page v. RileyOhio Supreme Court · 1999

19 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