COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 74168
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel         :
   FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, :
   et al                      :
                              :
               Relators       :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :              and
     vs.                      :            OPINION
                              :
CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, et al   :
                              :
               Respondents    :
DATE:   MAY 20, 1998
                          JOURNAL ENTRY
     The court  conducted  a  guidelines hearing  in  the  above-
captioned case on May 19,  1998.  Robert M. Phillips and  Richard
Taricska were present for the relators, and Vincent A. Feudo and L.
James Juliano were present for the respondents.  The attorneys for
the relators conceded that their claim for injunctive relief in the
amended complaint was not properly before the court of appeals in
this mandamus action  and that they could  not show cause why  it
should not be  dismissed.  Accordingly,  the relators' claim  for
injunctive relief is dismissed.
     The parties, through their attorneys, indicated that there are
probably no factual issues in dispute and that they can submit the
case to the  court on stipulations and cross-motions for  summary
judgment.  Accordingly, the court issues the following schedule:
          By July 20, 1998, the parties will notify the
          court  in writing  whether  the case  can  be
          submitted on stipulations or whether  factual
                               -2-
          issues, which will need judicial  resolution,
          have developed.   Assuming that the case  can
          proceed  on stipulations,  the  parties  will
          submit the stipulations by August 19, 1998.
          The parties  will submit their  cross-motions
          for summary judgment by September 18, 1998.
          Reply briefs will be filed by October 9, 1998.
     During the guidelines hearing,  the court and the  attorneys
discussed various items that might be helpful in resolving the case
and thus including  in the stipulations  or submissions: (1)  the
budget ordinances for the South Euclid Police Department for  the
last  five years; (2)  the history of  Ordinance 131.05; (3)  the
custom and practices under that ordinance; (4) the composition of
the police department; (5) the number, titles, duties and positions
of the lieutenants, sergeants and patrol officers; (6) a chronology
of when the  promotional exams were  given, including the  scores
under the exams, who retired and when, who was appointed and when,
and how  the appointments  were  made; (7)  the duration  of  the
promotion lists; and (8) complete copies of the relevant ordinances
and civil service  rules and regulations.   This is not meant  to
limit the parties in what they think is necessary to include in the
stipulations or submissions.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J. CONCURRING
JAMES D. SWEENEY, J.       CONCURRING
                               -3-
.