Cases from cite.case.law:

BASISTA HOLDINGS, LLC J. v. ELLSWORTH TOWNSHIP P. Jr., 710 F. App'x 688 (6th Cir. 2017)

. . . Code § 121.22. . . .

COMMITTEE TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS ON THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AND TO PRECLUDE SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS FOR MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY, v. OHIO BALLOT BOARD,, 275 F. Supp. 3d 849 (S.D. Ohio 2017)

. . . Code § 121.22(F). . . . .” § 121.22(F). . . . Code § 121.22(F). All Plaintiffs had to do was request advance notice and pay a reasonable fee. . . .

TAI SHAN CITY KAM KIU ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 125 F. Supp. 3d 1337 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015)

. . . However, the court also held that Commerce’s calculation of Kam Kiu’s 121.22% AFA rate was not supported . . . protest characterizing it as “a reiteration of the Department’s stated basis for application of the 121.22 . . . China and, using proxy rates chosen by Commerce through its hierarchy, computed Kam Kiu’s AFA rate of 121.22% . . . the location-specific subsidies and the Export Rebate Program to Kam Kiu, the court stated that the 121.22% . . . To illustrate its concerns, the court observed that Kam Kiu’s applied rate of 121.22% appeared to be . . .

TAI SHAN CITY KAM KIU ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 58 F. Supp. 3d 1384 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015)

. . . brief, Commerce continued to find Kam Kiu uncooperative in the Final Results and assigned Kam Kiu a 121.22% . . . Commerce applied a rate of 121.22 % for the years 2010 and 2011 to Kam Kiu and-the other uncooperative . . .

HUMPHRIES, v. CHICARELLI,, 554 F. App'x 401 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . Ohio Rev.Code § 121.22(G). . . .

BLAZY, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION S., 438 F. App'x 408 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 121.22, each member of the Executive Committee was properly notified of the January 17 meeting, in . . . notice provision hinges upon various provisions of Ohio and local law, including Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § § 121.22 . . .

In BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND ERISA LITIGATION. To, 763 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . The Company’s stock fell $6.03 as a result, closing at $121.22. (Sec. Compl. ¶ 227.) . . .

AARTI HOSPITALITY, LLC, d b a LLC, d b a d b a LP, d b a d b a d b a d b a SGB d b a v. CITY OF GROVE CITY, OHIO W., 350 F. App'x 1 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . Ohio Rev.Code Ann § 121.22. . . . .

WARTHMAN, v. GENOA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES,, 549 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 121.22. . . . Plaintiff had a right to a name clearing hearing which is the predicate for her hearing under R.C. 121.22 . . . that she “had a right to a name clearing hearing which is the predicate for her hearing under R.C. 121.22 . . .

GREATER HEIGHTS ACADEMY, v. Dr. ZELMAN,, 522 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . Ohio Rev.Code §§ 121.22, 3314.03(A)(11). . . .

L. SMITH, v. CITY OF SALEM, OHIO, D. A., 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . Although Ohio Revised Code § 121.22(G) — which sets forth the state procedures pursuant to which Ohio . . . His complaint outlines the statutory procedures, governed by O.R.C. § 121.22(G), pursuant to which members . . .

M. RHOADS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MAD RIVER LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, J., 103 F. App'x 888 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . Asserting that the board violated this provision is, in essence, asserting that it violated Ohio Rev.Code § 121.22 . . . While an action taken in violation of this provision is invalid, id. § 121.22(H), such an action must . . . Id. § 121.22(I)(1). . . . complaint in this case within two years of April 21, 1999, the complaint does not assert a claim under § 121.22 . . .

L. SMITH, v. CITY OF SALEM, OHIO, D. A., 369 F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . Although Ohio Revised Code § 121.22(G) — which sets forth the state procedures pursuant to which Ohio . . . His complaint outlines the statutory procedures, governed by O.R.C. § 121.22(G), pursuant to which members . . .

THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, A v. CINCINNATI BOARD OF EDUCATION,, 249 F. Supp. 2d 911 (S.D. Ohio 2003)

. . . See Ohio Rev.Code § 121.22. . . . The Board has at its disposal the machinery of Ohio Revised Code § 121.22, under which it can call executive . . . Although the Court abstains from holding that Section 121.22 would indeed shield the documents in question . . . law, the Court notes that none of the cases already before the Ohio Supreme Court involved Section 121.22 . . .

A. KISER, v. C. LOWE,, 236 F. Supp. 2d 872 (S.D. Ohio 2002)

. . . Ohio Rev.Code § 121.22: Ohio’s Sunshine Law Kiser alleges that, at the September 6, 2000 meeting of the . . . Ohio Rev.Code § 121.22(A). . . . Ohio Rev.Code § 121.22(G)(1). . . . In considering § 121.22(G)(1), the Matheny court stated: We believe that R.C. 121.22(G)(1) was intended . . . a violation of § 121.22(G)(1). . . . .