OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Premier Election Systems v. Cuyahoga County

Case Information

Date Filed: May 30, 2008
State: Ohio
Issue: Voting Technology
Courts that Heard this Case: Franklin County Common Pleas Court (Case 08 CV 007841)

Issue:

Whether Premier Election Systems has fullfilled the terms of its contract with Cuyahoga County and the State of Ohio

Status:

Complaint filed 5/30/08.  State's Counterclaim filed 8/6/08.  Various answer and motions for misjoinder have been filed by counties.  Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss on 9/11/08.

Trial Court Documents

  • Complaint PDF (filed 5/30/08)
  • Answer and Counterclaim PDF (filed 6/5/08)
  • Answer and Counterclaim of Cuyahoga County, et al. PDF (filed 7/15/08)
  • Crossclaim and First Amended Counterclaim PDF (filed 8/6/08)
  • Answer and Crossclaim (Guernsey County) (filed 8/27/08)
  • Answer and Motion for Misjoinder (Montgomery County) PDF (filed 8/27/08)
  • Answer to Crossclaim (Butler County) PDF (filed 9/5/08)
  • Answer to Crossclaim (Greene County)(filed 9/5/08)
  • Consent to Move or Plead (Stark County) (filed 9/5/08)
  • Consent to Move or Plead (Belmont County) (filed 9/5/08)
  • Motion to Dismiss and Memo in Support PDF (Miami County) (filed 9/10/08)
  • Answer to Counterclaim (Cuyahoga County) (filed 9/10/08)
  • Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss PDF (filed 9/11/08)
  • MOTION GRANTED (entered 9/15/08)
  • MEMO CONTRA FILED (filed 9/22/08)
  • Consent to Move of Plead (filed 9/26/08)
  • Answer to Cross Claim (filed 9/26/08)
  • MEMO CONTRA FILED (filed 9/29/08)
  • Answer to Complaint (filed 10/3/08)
  • Motion to Dismiss (filed 10/3/08)
  • MOTION TO EXTEND TIME (filed 10/8/08)
  • Memo Contra Motion to Dismiss (filed 10/9/08)
  • Motion to dismiss (filed 10/10/08)
  • Agreed Order (filed 10/10/08)
  • Entry (filed 10/16/08)
  • Letters (filed 10/16/08)
  • Defendant Disclosure of Witnesses (filed 10/17/08)
  • Defendant Disclosure of Witnesses (filed 10/17/08)
  • Motion to extend time (filed 10/17/08)
  • Defendant Disclosure of Witnesses (filed 10/17/08)
  • PLAINTIFF DISCLOSURE OF WITNESSES (filed 10/17/08)
  • REPLY MEMO (filed 10/20/08)
  • CONSENT TO MOVE OR PLEAD (filed 10/24/08)

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Columbus City Council Will See Some Reforms, But Not For Another Six Years

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in WOSU about changes to Columbus City Council that will stem from the passage of Issue 3.

 

“In a city where one political party is dominant, it makes sense to think about the citizen's commission to take it out of the hands of the politicians,” Foley said. “Because if you leave it in the hands of the politicians, it’s hard to get balance between the two parties.”


more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Decides Wisconsin and Maryland Gerrymandering Cases on Procedural Grounds

In opinions issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two gerrymandering cases on procedural grounds. In an opinion in the Wisconsin case of Gill v. Whitford, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the legislature\'s redistricting plan. In an opinion in the Maryland case of Benisek v. Lamone, the Court determined that the District Court was within its discretion in denying preliminary relief to the plaintiffs challenging the legislature\'s redistricting plan.

more info & analysis...