Opinion · District Court, N.D. Ohio
Armour v. State of Ohio
775 F. Supp. 1090
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court, N.D. Ohio
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
- Date
- 1991-09-04
- Topic
- general
ORDER BATCHELDER, District Judge. Because the majority’s ruling in this case requires that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter pending the drawing of new district lines for the Ohio House of Representatives districts, this case now presents the potential for a conflict of interest for me. Accordingly, I hereby recuse myself from any further participation in the matter, and I have this day advised the Chief Judge of the Circuit of this in order that he may determine whether another judge of the District Court shall be appointed to serve on this panel. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Armour v. State of Ohio. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
ARMOUR v. STATE OF OHIO, (N.D.Ohio 1991)
775 F. Supp. 1090
Ezell ARMOUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The STATE of OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 88CV1104Y.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio,
E.D.
September 4, 1991.
Andrew I. Sutter, Catherine M. Cola, Theresa R. Schaefer, Atty. Gens. Office, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.
Before NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge, JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, and BATCHELDER, District Judge.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.