State ex rel. Suburban Construction Co. v. Skok
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Suburban asserts in its propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing its prohibition complaint. The court of appeals’ dismissal of Suburban’s complaint for failure to ■ state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in Suburban’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that Suburban can prove no set of facts warranting relief. Clark v. Connor (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 309, 311, 695 N.E.2d 751, 754.
In order to be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Goldstein v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. White v. JunkinOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Clark v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Connor v. McGoughOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Fraiberg v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- City of Norwood v. HorneyOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Toma v. CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- State ex rel. Downs v. PaniotoOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Ragozine v. ShakerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.