Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1999No. 99-1036PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Per curiam

Bruggeman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim is appropriate if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 551, 553, 700 N.E.2d 1281, 1282. Therefore, we must determine whether Bruggeman’s prohibition claims are frivolous or obviously without merit. Id.

Bruggeman’s claims against the prosecutor are obviously…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Thompson v. SponOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Crebs v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State ex rel. Gray v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State ex rel. Jackson v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Kreps v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State ex rel. Williams v. Trim (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Asterino-StarcherOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  4. In re Criminal Charges Against GrovesOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. Leath v. ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 2016

22 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