State ex rel. Lisboa v. Fuerst
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals declaring appellant, Jose Lisboa Jr., to be a vexatious litigator under Loc.App.R. 23(B) of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Lisboa’s claims that the local appellate rule is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal lack merit. See Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio St.3d 3, 740 N.E.2d 656 (2000), paragraph one of the syllabus (upholding the constitutionality of the comparable vexatious-litigator statute, R.C. 2323.52, by rejecting claims that the statute violated constitutional rights to due process and access to courts); Grundstein v. Ohio, N.D.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mayer v. BristowOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Barr v. PittmanOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State ex rel. Lisboa v. FuerstOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Peterson v. MidayOhio Supreme Court · 2024
- State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
- State v. WestOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
- Easterling v. Union Sav. BankOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Wiltz v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 2025
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.