Dated record
Timeline
A chronological guide to major events reflected in the current document collection. Entries summarize the cited record and retain its legal or evidentiary status.
- Removal-order allegations
Events at the closed City swimming pool
A later appellate decision recounts allegations in Greg Smith’s removal order concerning an after-hours visit to the Nelsonville City Swimming Pool. The order alleged obscene and sexual conduct, an impaired City employee driving, forcible entry into the pool, and solicitation of sexual conduct.
Source: Greg Smith v. City of Nelsonville, Fourth District Court of Appeals, Case No. CA-1296.
Read source → - Removal proceedings
Removal as police chief sustained
The mayor removed Smith as Nelsonville police chief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Civil Service Commission affirmed the removal, and the Common Pleas Court affirmed the Commission. The 1987 appellate decision addressed Smith’s procedural and due-process arguments and noted that he did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at either court level.
Source: Greg Smith v. City of Nelsonville, Fourth District Court of Appeals, Case No. CA-1296, decided April 30, 1987.
Read source → - Official audit
Special audit period
The Auditor of State’s special audit covers City activity from January 1, 2012 through February 5, 2020 and includes a fraud-examination report, findings for recovery, and management recommendations.
Source: City of Nelsonville Special Audit Report.
Read source → - Executed agreement
Greg Smith settlement documentation
The assembled records show a $137,500 settlement structure: $70,000 paid by the City toward legal fees and $67,500 paid by the City’s releasees to Greg Smith. The agreement includes dismissal and future-office provisions that should be read in full.
Source: Settlement, Waiver, and Release Agreement and related payment records.
Read source → - Litigation historyParty account
Case No. 24CA0011 and related service dispute
The 2025 motion-to-strike package recounts the related Common Pleas filing, the commencement of the Fourth District action, dismissal of the first appellate proceeding, and a later Supreme Court remand. Its email exhibits document repeated correspondence between counsel about electronic service. This description reflects the respondents’ filing and attached docket materials; the package does not include every underlying order.
Source: Respondents’ Motion to Strike and Exhibits A and B-1 through B-8.
Read source → - Election history
Issue 23 approved
The June 10, 2026 appellate decision recounts that voters approved Issue 23 to abolish the city charter and return to a statutory form of government effective January 1, 2026.
Source: Decision and Judgment Entry, Case No. 26CA3, ¶¶ 5–7.
Read source → - Party motionOutcome not included
Respondents seek to strike merit brief
After the relators filed a merit brief and amended petition, respondents moved to strike the May 16 brief, reset the schedule, and require future email service. Two supporting affidavits state that counsel learned of the brief through the docket rather than service. The supplied package does not include a court order resolving that request.
Source: Motion to Strike Relators’ Merit Brief, filed June 3, 2025, and supporting affidavits.
Read source → - Government actionDisputed validity
Ordinance 54-25 enacted
The appellate record states that Council enacted Ordinance 54-25 as an emergency measure purporting to repeal Issue 23. The ordinance’s validity later became central to the quo warranto dispute.
Source: Decision and Judgment Entry, Case No. 26CA3, ¶ 10.
Read source → - Dismissal
Case No. 26CI0017 dismissed without prejudice
Andrea Nicole Thompson Hashman voluntarily dismissed the civil action without prejudice. The parties stipulated that defendants would waive a laches defense if the same claims were refiled.
Source: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Joint Stipulation.
Read source → - Complaint allegation
Public-records response dispute
A Court of Claims filing by Gregory Smith alleges delay in the production of ordinances requested on March 17. The filing records responses from the Council Clerk and special counsel; the complaint itself is not a finding.
Source: Ohio Court of Claims public-records complaint.
Read source → - Court order
Injunction request denied
The Fourth District denied the motion for injunctive relief in Case No. 26CA3 for lack of jurisdiction.
Source: Judgment Entry, Case No. 26CA3.
Read source → - Court decisionUnderlying validity unresolved
Writ denied in Case No. 26CA3
The court found that the relators established entitlement to the statutory offices, but denied the writ because it lacked original jurisdiction to declare Ordinance 54-25 invalid. The court stated that, without such a declaration from a court with original jurisdiction, relators had not proven respondents held office unlawfully.
Source: Decision and Judgment Entry, Case No. 26CA3, ¶¶ 35–38.
Read source → - Petition filedUnresolved
Mandamus petition by Andrea Thompson-Hashman
The petition alleges entitlement to the auditor’s office and seeks mandamus or peremptory relief. Its factual assertions remain allegations unless established by a later order or other authoritative record.
Source: Verified Petition for Mandamus.
Read source →