Case ID: ohio-st-3d_67/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Douglas, Wright and Pfeifer, JJ.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Nelson, Appellant, v. Tubbs Jones, Pros. Atty., Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Nelson v. Tubbs Jones (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 438.]
    (No. 93-593
    Submitted June 15, 1993
    Decided October 6, 1993.)
    
      Carl A. Nelson, Sr., pro se.
    
    
      Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carol Shockley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

While we are aware of no procedural rule that authorizes the court to dismiss a case summarily on a question of law — see State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 605 N.E.2d 378 — we find on the merits that the court of appeals reached the right result and affirm its judgment based on Fenley, supra, and State ex rel. Nelson v. Fuerst (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 47, 607 N.E.2d 836.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Douglas, Wright and Pfeifer, JJ.,

dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Wright’s dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Soc. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 509, 515-516, 597 N.E.2d 120, 125-126.