562 N.E.2d 893-899Supreme Court of Ohio.
1990.
MOTION DOCKET Friday, October 19, 1990 90-1932. Christensen v. Bd. of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court. In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s motion to expedite ruling on petition for writ of prohibition, IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion be, and the same is hereby, denied, effective October 17, 1990.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that on before November 14, 1990, the parties shall file with the Clerk of this court all evidence which they intend to present pursuant to Section 7, Rule VIII, Supreme Court Rules of Practice, and that the parties shall thereafter comply with Section 8, Rule VIII, Supreme Court Rules of Practice, regarding the time for filing briefs.
Douglas, J., would deny the motion for expedited ruling, and deny the order requested.
Wright, J., would grant the motion for an expedited ruling.
Resnick, J., would grant an alternative writ.
90-1943. State, ex rel. Lloyds Bank Plc., v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas. In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s motion for alternative writ, IT IS ORDERED by the court that said alternative writ be, and the same is hereby,
Page 702
granted, and respondents are hereby restrained from further action in this cause pending final determination of this case, effective October 17, 1990.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that respondents show cause, on or before November 6, 1990, why a peremptory writ of prohibition should not issue.