State ex rel. Brown v. Shoemaker
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The parties to this action have failed to submit briefs to further delineate their respective positions with regard to the propriety of this court’s issuing the prayed-for writ of procedendo. Nevertheless, we find that the parties have submitted sufficient pleadings to allow this court to make an informed decision on whether to issue the writ.
Respondent contends that this action is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. However, based on the facts and circumstances before us, we cannot agree.
Based on the amended complaint filed in this action, it is alleged that the action in the Court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thirty-Four Corp. v. Sixty-Seven Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Wallace v. TyackOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Smith v. FriedmanOhio Supreme Court · 1970
3Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Yee v. Erie County Sheriff's DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Brigner v. Mount Carmel Health Sys.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019
- Gassaway v. Muskingum Cty. Common Pleas CourtOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.