Sutelan v. Ohio State Univ.
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 4026
Syllabus
On review of a report and recommendation, the court found a defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation relative to a recommendation that an exception to the mootness doctrine should be found in the case. The court adopted in part and rejected in part the report and recommendation. Judgment was rendered in favor of the requester.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that § 314(d) did not bar re- view of the Board’s denial of a request for estoppel where “the alleged estoppel-triggering event occurred after insti- tution”
- holding that § 314(d) does not bar review of estoppel determinations under § 315(e)(1) based on post-institution events
- holding that § 314(d) does not bar review of estoppel determinations under § 315(e)(1) based on post-institution events
- concluding that § 314(d) did not bar re- view of the Board’s denial of a request for estoppel where “the alleged estoppel-triggering event occurred after insti- tution”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McGrath
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.