Staton v. Timberlake
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 2322
Syllabus
After neither Requester nor Respondent filed timely written objections to a Report and Recommendation, upon independent review, the Court found that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with a Special Master's recommendations, the Court construed Requester's filing of April 18, 2023, as a motion for leave to amend the Complaint, granted Requester's motion, and accepted Requester's amendment. The Court denied Requester's claim for production of certain unredacted police reports as moot, sustained Requester's claim that Respondent's delay in producing the unredacted police reports violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1), and denied the other relief sought by Requester. The Court ordered that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by Requester, excepting attorney fees.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the Tax Court is “a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers”
- stating that “the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to decide an issue that was not the subject of the Tax Court proceeding”
- describing a deficiency notice as “the taxpayer’s jurisdictional ticket to the Tax Court” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- applying Reisman to Google’s pre-enforcement challenge under the Communications Decency Act, the Fourth Amendment, and the First Amendment to a non-self-executing CID in holding the challenge was not ripe
- “[Questions relating to interest ... [are] separate and outside the scope of the petition to the Tax Court[.]”
- “The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction” and possesses only that jurisdiction expressly conferred by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sadler
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.