State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley, 97-1420
| Decision Date | 19 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1420,97-1420 |
| Citation | 685 N.E.2d 1247,80 Ohio St.3d 292 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. KEENER et al. v. VILLAGE OF AMBERLEY et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Thomas A. Luken and David J. Boyd, Cincinnati, for relators.
Stephen Cohen, Amberley Village Solicitor, for respondents.
We grant respondents' motion and dismiss the cause. Relators failed to name the proper respondents in this action, and the named respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the requested acts. See Section IV, Article III of the Amberley Charter; R.C. 121.22(B); see, also, Krash v. Alliance (July 2, 1990), Stark App. Nos. CA-8046 and CA-8058, unreported, 1990 WL 93914. In addition, respondents' motion to dismiss alerted relators to this problem, i.e., failure to name the village council or its members as parties, even though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members. Relators, however, did not specifically oppose this part of respondents' dismissal motion in their motion to strike or seek leave to amend their complaint. See, generally, 1 Klein & Darling, Baldwin's Ohio Practice, Civil Practice (1997) 872, Section AT 19-2, citing Moore v. Benjamin (Mar. 27, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50316, unreported, 1986 WL 3718. 1
Motion granted and cause dismissed.
1 Based on the foregoing, relators' motion to strike, which is not directed to this part of respondents' motion to dismiss, is moot.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council
...focuses on the city, we question whether the city is a proper party in an action such as this. See State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 292, 293, 685 N.E.2d 1247. Nevertheless, we recognize that this is not a proper subject for this ...
- State ex rel. Hartness v. Kroger Co.
-
State ex rel. Ross v. State, 2004 Ohio 1827 (Ohio 4/28/2004)
...Pleas to perform certain actions, he failed to name the court as a respondent in his complaint. See State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 292, 293, 685 N.E.2d 1247. {¶9} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Ross's complaint. We affirm the judgment of the court......
-
Tabor v. Goodrich
...deficient and is cause for dismissal. See, e.g., State ex rel. Sherrils v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133 (2001); State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley, 80 Ohio St.3d 292 (1997). Mr. Tabor failed to include the required addresses, and improperly captioned the petition. {¶9} Consistent with ......