Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 28, 1999No. 99-1198PublishedCited by 97 opinions
1Per curiam
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Relators claim that pursuant to Civ.R. 15(A), because no responsive pleading had been filed at the time that they filed their amended complaint, they have an unrestricted right to amend their complaint as a matter of course. S.Ct.Prae.R. X(2) provides that all original actions other than habeas corpus filed in this court “shall proceed under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, unless clearly inapplicable.” State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 185, 685 N.E.2d 507, 510. Civ.R. 15(A) provides that “[a]…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Nixon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. BallinSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- State v. HochhauslerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- Timothy J. Grendell Gerald W. Phillips, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. The Ohio Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- State ex rel. Kreps v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Whitman v. Hamilton County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Brown v. OwenWashington Supreme Court · 2009
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.