© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
- Language
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Legal malpractice; statute of limitations; Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; test for identifying a cognizable event.
EXTRAORDINARY WRITS - writ of habeas corpus; motion to dismiss; failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; post-release control; void; appeal.
Trial court properly dismissed complaint for injunctive relief for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Allegation of false light, invasion of privacy. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judgment for defendant.
Allegation of false light, invasion of privacy. Failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted. Judgment for defendant.
Trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (5) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; plaintiffs claims that gas company acted unreasonably in terminating his service were service-related claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and plaintiffs attempt to characterize claims as torts did not change jurisdictional outcome; further, complaint failed to adequately plead claims.
Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss; failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; de novo review; presume all factual allegations of the complaint are true; limited to facts alleged in complaint; savings statute; R.C. 2305.15; interstate commerce; commerce clause.
Trial court did not err in dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant failed to establish that the parole board improperly convened a full board hearing. Appellant also failed to establish that the parole board exceeded its authority by permitting testimony from his former wife, his former sister-in-law, and a social worker regarding alleged acts toward appellant's daughter, even though those alleged acts did not form the basis for appellant's conviction.
Defective indictment cannot be addressed through a writ of prohibition, denial of right to speedy trial cannot be addressed through a writ of mandamus, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; declaration as a vexatious litigator per Loc.App.R. 23.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company