State ex rel. E.M. v. Jones
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 1178
Syllabus
R.C. 2731.06 Peremptory writ of mandamus motion for continuance Sup.R. 41 scheduling conflict Civ.R. 53 magistrate's order. Request from peremptory writ of mandamus was denied where respondent had no clear legal duty to grant an untimely motion for continuance based on a scheduling conflict of counsel pursuant to Sup.R. 41. The fact that a magistrate and respondent signed the judgment entry denying the motion for continuance did not establish a clear legal right to the requested relief
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- violation “did not partake of the meretricious quality signified by ‘wilful’ judge’s finding implied negligence
- builder who breached numerous obligations to construct a solar heating system, was in violation of c. 93A, §2, but conduct was not wilful
- faulty construction of solar-heated house
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Forbes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.