Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

State ex rel. Keener v. Village of Amberley

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

80 Ohio St. 3d 292; 685 N.E.2d 1247

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Becker v. City of Eastlake (Ohio 2001)
Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (Ohio 2001)
State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake (Ohio 2001)
Pough v. State, 2007-T-0005 (8-17-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Perry v. State, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Wherry v. State, Unpublished Decision (12-4-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Ross v. State (Ohio 2004)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (Ohio 2001)
State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley (Ohio 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We grant respondents’ motion and dismiss the cause. Relators failed to name the proper respondents in this action, and the named respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the requested acts. See Section IV, Article III of the Amberley Charter; R.C. 121.22(B); see, also, Krash v. Alliance (July 2, 1990), Stark App. Nos. CA-8046 and CA-8058, unreported, 1990 WL 93914. In addition, respondents’ motion to dismiss alerted relators to this problem, ie., failure to name the village council or its members as parties, even though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members. Relators, however, did not specifically oppose this part of respondents’ dismissal motion in their motion to strike or seek leave to amend their complaint. See, generally, 1 Klein & Darling, Baldwin’s Ohio Practice, Civil Practice (1997) 872, Section AT 19-2, *294citing Moore v. Benjamin (Mar. 27, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50316, unreported, 1986 WL 3718.1

Motion granted and cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

. Based on the foregoing, relators’ motion to strike, which is not directed to this part of respondents’ motion to dismiss, is moot.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.