State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2000 Ohio 74 (Ohio 2000)
90 Ohio St. 3d 272

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 
90 Ohio St.3d 272
.]




    THE STATE EX REL. PLAIN DEALER PUBLISHING COMPANY v. COURT OF
                       COMMON PLEAS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY.
  [Cite as State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of
                            Common Pleas, 
2000-Ohio-74
.]
Complaint dismissed because issue now moot.
  (No. 00-301—Submitted September 26, 2000—Decided November 8, 2000.)
                                     IN PROHIBITION.
                                  __________________
           Baker & Hostetler L.L.P., Kyle B. Fleming and Jeffrey T. Williams, for
relator.
           Gold, Schwartz & Co., L.P.A., Niki Z. Schwartz, Orville E. Stifel II and
Jennifer E. Schwartz, for respondent.
           William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Randi
Marie Ostry, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, in support of respondent, for amicus
curiae state of Ohio.
           David H. Hoffmann, in support of respondent, for amicus curiae Ohio
Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
           Friedman & Gilbert, Terry H. Gilbert, Gordon S. Friedman and George H.
Carr, in support of respondent, for amicus curiae Charles Murray, special
administrator of the estate of Samuel H. Sheppard.
                                  __________________
           {¶ 1} The cause is dismissed because the issue is now moot.
              MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
              LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
           COOK, J., dissents.
                                  __________________
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




         COOK, J., dissenting.
         {¶ 2} I would grant the writ. Though an opinion by this court at this
juncture would not affect the case at bar, the decision could set parameters for future
cases.
                                 __________________




                                         2


Reference

Status
Published
Syllabus
Complaint dismissed because issue now moot.