Legal Opinion

Ohioans for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Taft

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1993No. 92-1080PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

R.C. 2721.12 requires service of a copy of the proceeding on the Attorney General when a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute in a declaratory judgment action. R.C. 2721.12 does not require, however, that the Attorney General be named as a party in such an action. Malloy v. Westlake (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 103, 6 O.O.3d 329, 370 N.E.2d 457. A misstatement of the law in paragraph one of the syllabus in Westlake v. Mascot Petroleum Co. (1991), *18361 Ohio St.3d 161, 573 N.E.2d 1068, has led to some confusion in this area. That paragraph reads:

“While R.C. 2721.12, which requires that the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hall China Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Malloy v. City of WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. City of Westlake v. Mascot Petroleum Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Mayer v. BristowOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Cicco v. StockmasterOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Princeton City School District v. Ohio State Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Deluca v. City of AuroraOhio Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. Republic Serv. of Ohio v. Bd. of Pike Twp., 2006 Ca 00153 (4-30-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

21 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