Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Board of Commissioners

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1995No. 94-2385PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Per curiam

In his first proposition of law, Lindenschmidt asserts that the court of appeals abused its discretion in granting the board leave to file an answer after the twenty-eight-day period had expired. See Civ.R. 12(A)(1); Loc.R. 20(A) of the Twelfth Appellate District (“An original action * * * shall proceed as any civil action under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

Civ.R. 6(B)(2) provides that “[w]hen by these rules * * * an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion * * * upon motion made after the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State ex rel. Seikbert v. WilkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Marion Production Credit Ass'n v. CochranOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Miller v. LintOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Greenwood v. Taft, Stettinius & HollisterOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Cline v. Mtge. Electronic Registration Sys., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Bono v. McCutcheonOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Fitzpatrick v. PalmerOhio Court of Appeals · 2009

57 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