Narrative Opinion Summary
On April 6, 1993, the court reviewed the case based on submitted briefs and oral arguments. Following the enactment of Civ.R. 34(D) on July 1, 1993, the court concluded that the matter presented was resolved with this new rule, rendering the issue moot. Consequently, case No. 91-2365 was dismissed. Chief Justice Moyer and Justices A.W. Sweeney, Wright, and Resnick concurred with the decision, while Justices Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, and Pfeifer dissented.
Legal Issues Addressed
Case Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was dismissed based on the mootness of the issue, as determined by the court's interpretation of the new rule.
Reasoning: Consequently, case No. 91-2365 was dismissed.
Judicial Concurrence and Dissentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to dismiss the case saw a division among the justices, with a majority concurring and a minority dissenting.
Reasoning: Chief Justice Moyer and Justices A.W. Sweeney, Wright, and Resnick concurred with the decision, while Justices Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, and Pfeifer dissented.
Mootness Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the mootness doctrine to dismiss the case, as the issue under consideration was resolved by the enactment of a new rule, rendering the matter no longer applicable.
Reasoning: Following the enactment of Civ.R. 34(D) on July 1, 1993, the court concluded that the matter presented was resolved with this new rule, rendering the issue moot.