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

Cassidy, Marilyn B.

Jones, Stephanie Tubbs

Murphy, Patrick J.

English

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Cleveland State UniversityEngagedScholarship@CSU1995-2002 Court Filings 2000 Trial2-28-1997Answer of the State of OhioStephanie Tubbs JonesCuyahoga County ProsecutorMarilyn B. CassidyCuyahoga County Assistant ProsecutorPatrick J. MurphyCuyahoga County Assistant ProsecutorHow does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_court_filings_2000This Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322 is brought to you for free and open access by the 2000 Trial atEngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995-2002 Court Filings by an authorized administrator ofEngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact library.es@csuohio.edu.Recommended CitationJones, Stephanie Tubbs; Cassidy, Marilyn B.; and Murphy, Patrick J., "Answer of the State of Ohio" (1997). 1995-2002 Court Filings.126.https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_court_filings_2000/126IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ALAN DAVIS, EXECUTOR, ET.AL. CASE NO. 312322 Plaintiff -V-STATE OF OHIO Defendant JUDGE RON SUSTER ANSWER OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF WRONGFUL INCARCERATION The State of Ohio, by and through counsel, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Prosecuting Attorney for Cuyahoga County, and Marilyn Barkley Cassidy and Patrick Murphy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for its answer to the petition herein states as follows: 1. State admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs one, two, three, and four of the petition. 2. State admits that Dr. Sheppard was. incarcerated in Ohio prison(s) but denies the period of time set forth in paragraph five. 3. The State denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs six, and seven of the petition. 4. The State denies for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. 5. The state specifically denies paragraph thirteen of the petition. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 7. This court lacks jurisdiction to render judgment. 8. The estate of Samuel Sheppard lacks standing to assert a claim of wrongful incarceration. 9. This action is barred by the statute of limitations. 10. This action is barred by laches. 11. Any claim that Samuel Sheppard may have lawfully pursued has abated with his death, the passage of time, and through his failure to timely assert a claim at or near the time of his acquittal. WHEREFORE, the State of Ohio, respectfully requests that this action be dismissed, at petitioner's costs, and that judgment be entered on behalf of the state of Ohio. Respectfully Submitted, STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY ar' lyn BiaJj ley' Cassidy (0014647) Patrick ~_)_Murphy (0002401) Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys 1200 Ontario Street - 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 443-7785 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Answer of the State_of Ohio, was served upon Terry Gilbert, Attorney for Petitioner, Special Administrator for the Estate of Samuel H. Sheppard, 1700 Standard Building, 1370 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, this 28th day of Februrary, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, 

Answer of the State of Ohio

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&amp;context=sheppard_court_filings_2000

Answer of the State of Ohio

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University