State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton County Board of Elections
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- State ex rel. Nimon v. Village of SpringdaleOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- State ex rel. Natalina Food Co. v. Ohio Civil Rights CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Ruehlmann v. LukenOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Senn v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State ex rel. Herman v. KlopfleischOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Sinay v. SoddersOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Tiemann v. University of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.