Per Curiam. Zanders asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition. For the reasons that follow, however, Zanders’s assertion lacks merit. First, as the court of appeals held, Zanders failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 in commencing his action. See State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), <span class="citation" d…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.