Case Name: The State ex rel. Lewis v. Hamilton County Board of Elections et al.; The State ex rel. Taxpayers for Accountable Government et al. v. Cincinnati City Council et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1995-08-28
Citations: 74 Ohio St. 3d 1201
Docket Number: Nos. 95-1689 and 95-1714
Parties: The State ex rel. Lewis v. Hamilton County Board of Elections et al. The State ex rel. Taxpayers for Accountable Government et al. v. Cincinnati City Council et al.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 74
Pages: 1201–1205

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Lewis v. Hamilton County Board of Elections et al. The State ex rel. Taxpayers for Accountable Government et al. v. Cincinnati City Council et al.
[Cite as State ex rel. Lewis v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1201.]
(Nos. 95-1689 and 95-1714
Submitted and decided August 28, 1995.)
Laufman, Rauh & Gerhardstein and Robert F. Laufman, for relator William B. Lewis in case No. 95-1689.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, Gordon M. Strauss and Robert E. Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondents Hamilton County Board of Elections et al. in case No. 95-1689.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Susan E. Ashbrook and Andrew S. Bergman, Assistant Attorneys General, for intervenors-respondent Secretary of State Bob Taft in case No. 95-1689.
Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, P.L.L.C., Christopher P. Finney, Robert D. Hudson and Thomas H. Stewart, for intervenors-respondents and relators Taxpayers for Accountable Government et al. in case Nos. 95-1689 and 95-1714.
Fay D. Dupuis, City Solicitor, Robert H. Johnstone, Deputy City Solicitor, and Richard Ganulin, Assistant City Solicitor, for respondents Cincinnati City Council et al. in case Nos. 95-1689 and 95-1714.
S. David Worhatch, urging dismissal of the complaint or denial of relief for amici curiae, John Ricchiuto et al. and David A. Huebner et al. in case No. 95-1689.

Opinion:
Case No. 95-1689
This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition regarding an expedited election matter. Upon consideration of respondents' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is dismissed, effective August 28, 1995.
Case No. 95-1714
This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition regarding an expedited election matter. Upon consideration of relators' application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted, effective August 28, 1995.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.