State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 718 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 718 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
111 citation events (109 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State ex rel. Bazetta Twp. v. Yoder, 2025-Ohio-4915
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “there is no requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings.”6 citing cases6 citing courts quote it · 5 listed here
At page 427 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Jeronique Cunningham v. Stuart Hudson, 756 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2014).published
    Prosecutor’s Office, 87 Ohio St.3d 158 , 718 N.E.2d 426, 427-28 (1999), and routinely deny post-conviction petitions without permitting discovery, State v. Keith, 176 Ohio App.3d 260 , 891 N.E.2d 1191, 1198 (2008), it is not clear that a p…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State ex rel. Love
v.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office
No. 99-969.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Nov 10, 1999.
Published opinion
718 N.E.2d 426
Edsel Love, pro se. , William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 67 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #29,013 of 633,719
Citer courts: Ohio Court of Appeals (3)
Per Curiam.

Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Love’s contentions lack merit.

As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to the requested records. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of unspecified laws. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993),[*159] 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232. In fact, there is no requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings. See State v. Spirko (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 421, 429, 713 N.E.2d 60, 65, discretionary appeal not allowed (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1430, 699 N.E.2d 946; State v. White (June 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 394938, unreported, 1999 WL 394938.

In addition, Love is not entitled to the requested records under the Crim.R. 16 criminal discovery provisions because his criminal trial concluded long before his requests. State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 699 N.E.2d 62, 63; Crim.R. 16(D).

Finally, Love disclaimed any right to relief under R.C. 149.43. Flagner, 83 Ohio St.3d at 177, 699 N.E.2d at 63.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.