Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1998No. 97-1517PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Per curiam

Grove asserts in his first and second propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by granting Judge Nadel’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissing his complaint for a writ of procedendo. In order to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor. Civ.R. 12(B)(6); State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. SchroederOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Miley v. ParrottOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Werden v. CrawfordOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State ex rel. Drake v. Athens County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Greeen v. EnrightOhio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Steven Mark Lasar v. Ford Motor Company, and Lawrence SutterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  2. City of Cleveland v. TrzebuckowskiOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormickOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State ex rel. Daniels v. RussoOhio Supreme Court · 2018

36 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