Reply of the State of Ohio

The State of Ohio\u27s argument that the claim for wrongful imprisonment should not be attached to the original criminal docket. The State argues that wrongful imprisonment is a civil action subject to the Ohio Civil Rules

Motion of the State of Ohio to Dismiss

Alan Davis, Special Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Sheppard, through counsel, has requested the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, by way of petition, to make a determination that he is a wrongfully incarcerated individual pursuant to R. C. §2305.02 and §2743.48. The State of Ohio asserts that, pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 12 (B) (6) the court should dismiss the action. The State of Ohio is entitled to dismissal by operation of the doctrine of laches and the applicable statutes of limitation. Additionally, a claim of wrongful incarceration is a personal claim which an estate has no standing to pursue. Finally, any claim which may have been lawfully asserted by Samuel Sheppard has abated with his death, the passage of time, and his failure to pursue the claim at or near the time of his acquittal. This motion was denied on 01/13/97. See Court Docket

Motion of the State of Ohio for Judgment on the Pleadings, Hearing Requested

The State of Ohio asserted that the claims brought forth by the Estate of Sam Sheppard fail as matter of law and requests a full hearing on the issues it presents. The motion makes three legal arguments: (1) the court lacks jurisdiction over the Estate of Sam Sheppard\u27s claims because the claim was unreasonably delayed, (2) the statute of limitations bars any claim that Sam Sheppard might have, and (3) the Estate of Sam Sheppard does not have standing to bring a wrongful imprisonment claim because the injured party is deceased. This motion was denied; see docke

Answer of the State of Ohio

Includes affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, laches and abatement upon death

Objections to Transfer of Case, Motion to Reassign the Docket of Kathleen Sutula According to Random Draw (with supporting materials)

The State of Ohio’s objection to the transfer of the case to Judge Suster’s Docket. At this point the court has already decided transfer the civil case from Judge Kathleen Sutula’s Docket to Judge Suster’s. The State objects to that transfer, arguing that the case assignment should be subject to random draw because the criminal case and civil case are not related. The court denied this motion on 2/5/1997; see docke

Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss of the State of Ohio

The State of Ohio asserted that the petition should be stricken or dismissed because it was filed under the original criminal case when it should have been filed as a civil action

Objections to Transfer of Case, Motion to Reassign the Docket of Kathleen Sutula According to Random Draw (with supporting materials)

The State of Ohio’s objection to the transfer of the case to Judge Suster’s Docket. At this point the court has already decided transfer the civil case from Judge Kathleen Sutula’s Docket to Judge Suster’s. The State objects to that transfer, arguing that the case assignment should be subject to random draw because the criminal case and civil case are not related. The court denied this motion on 2/5/1997; see docke

Motion of the State of Ohio for Judgment on the Pleadings

The State of Ohio asserts that the claims brought forth by the Estate of Sam Sheppard fail as matter of law. The motion makes three legal arguments: (1) the court lacks jurisdiction over the Estate of Sam Sheppard\u27s claims because the claim was unreasonably delayed, (2) the statute of limitations bars any claim that Sam Sheppard might have, and (3) the Estate of Sam Sheppard does not have standing to bring a wrongful imprisonment claim because the injured party is deceased

Defendant\u27s Motion for Stay of Discovery, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order

The State of Ohio’s motion to prevent discovery until the judge rules on the State’s motion for judgment of the pleadings. The state argues that since the motion that has not yet been ruled on could dispose of the case completely, there is no reason to undertake the expense and inconvenience of discovery until there is a ruling on the motion. The court denied this motion on 6/3/97; see docke

State of Ohio\u27s Objections to Proposed Pretrial Order

Contains the State of Ohio’s objections to Plaintiff’s pretrial order. The objections are numbered and include a short explanation of each legal issue