You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd

Citations: 109 Ohio St. 3d 1474; 847 N.E.2d 1221Docket: 2006-0945

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; May 19, 2006; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

A complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition was filed, leading the court to sua sponte grant an alternative writ. A briefing schedule was established for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs in accordance with S.Ct. Prac.R. X. The schedule is as follows: parties must file evidence within 20 days, the relator has 10 days to file their brief after evidence submission, respondents must file their brief within 20 days after the relator's brief, and the relator can submit a reply brief within 7 days following the respondents' brief. Justice Pfeifer dissents.

Legal Issues Addressed

Briefing Schedule in Mandamus and Prohibition Proceedings

Application: The court outlined a specific timeline for the submission of evidence and briefs, detailing the responsibilities and deadlines for both parties involved.

Reasoning: A briefing schedule was established for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs in accordance with S.Ct. Prac.R. X.

Dissent in Judicial Decisions

Application: Justice Pfeifer expressed disagreement with the majority's decision to issue the alternative writ, indicating a division in judicial opinion.

Reasoning: Justice Pfeifer dissents.

Issuance of Alternative Writ in Mandamus and Prohibition Cases

Application: The court exercised its authority to issue an alternative writ on its own motion in the context of a mandamus and prohibition complaint.

Reasoning: A complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition was filed, leading the court to sua sponte grant an alternative writ.