Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton County Board of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 1992No. 92-1676PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

The motions to intervene, which relators do not oppose, are sustained. The motion for leave to file a counterclaim and cross-claim is overruled. Both claims demand a writ of prohibition to prevent placement of Magness’s name on the general-election ballot and, therefore, constitute a single cross-claim against respondents, as coparties to Guckenberger. Moreover, under Civ.R. 13(G), cross-claims must arise “out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter * * * of the original action.” Relators’ complaint arose from the approval of Guckenberger’s nomination; whereas…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State ex rel. Nimon v. Village of SpringdaleOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  3. State ex rel. Natalina Food Co. v. Ohio Civil Rights CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State ex rel. Ruehlmann v. LukenOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State ex rel. Senn v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Herman v. KlopfleischOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Sinay v. SoddersOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Tiemann v. University of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995

10 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