mandamus claim in Ohio

2014Ohio Aluminum Industries, Inc. v. Conrad, 97 Ohio St.3d 38 , 2002-Ohio-5307 , the Supreme Court of Ohio decided a case involving an employer's mandamus challenge to the bureau's manual reclassification that resulted in a higher premium to the employer.

2008Ohio Aluminum Industries, Inc. v. Conrad , 97 Ohio St.3d 38 , 2002-Ohio-5307 , at ¶ 17-20 , the Supreme Court of Ohio decided a case involving an employer's mandamus challenge to the BWC's manual reclassification that resulted in a higher premium to the employer.

2014Ohio Aluminum Industries, Inc. v. Conrad, 97 Ohio St.3d 38 , 2002-Ohio-5307 , the Supreme Court of Ohio decided a case involving an employer's mandamus challenge to the bureau's manual reclassification that resulted in a higher premium to the employer.

2008Ohio Aluminum Industries, Inc. v. Conrad , 97 Ohio St.3d 38 , 2002-Ohio-5307 , at ¶ 17-20 , the Supreme Court of Ohio decided a case involving an employer's mandamus challenge to the BWC's manual reclassification that resulted in a higher premium to the employer.

2017Murr v. Meyer (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 46, 47 , 516 N.E.2d 234, 235 , affirming the dismissal of a similar mandamus claim.

2017Murr v. Meyer (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 46, 47 , 516 N.E.2d 234, 235 , affirming the dismissal of a similar mandamus claim.

2025Grim v. New Holland, 2024-Ohio-4822, ¶ 5 .

2025Grim v. New Holland, 2024-Ohio-4822, ¶ 5 ; accord State ex rel.

2019Mora v. Wilkinson , 105 Ohio St.3d 272 , 2005-Ohio-1509 , 824 N.E.2d 1000 , ¶ 14-15 (holding that a mandamus claim is barred by res judicata when the relator raised the same issues in a prior action). {¶ 21} "We have routinely held that extraordinary writs may not be used as a substitute for an otherwise barred second appeal or to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue." LTV Steel Co. , 64 Ohio St.3d at 249 , 594 N.E.2d 616 .

2017Mora v. Wilkinson , 105 Ohio St.3d 272 , 2005-Ohio-1509 , 824 N.E.2d 1000 , ¶ 14-15 (holding that a mandamus claim is barred by res judicata when the relator raised the same issues in a prior action). {¶ 15} Accordingly, we deny the motion for default judgment and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

2014Tran. v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45 , 676 N.E.2d 108 (1997). {¶6} The Treasurer contends that dismissal of the mandamus claim is warranted on multiple grounds, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because TLLG has failed to join Lakeview, that is allegedly an indispensable party.

2014Tran. v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45 , 676 N.E.2d 108 (1997). {¶6} The Treasurer contends that dismissal of the mandamus claim is warranted on multiple grounds, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because TLLG has failed to join Lakeview, that is allegedly an indispensable party.

2013Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 , 2006-Ohio-5858 , 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 11 . {¶ 13} With these principles guiding our analysis, we now consider the mandamus claim. {¶ 14} McQueen submitted a written request for a guardianship-review hearing after the expiration of 120 days from the date the probate court had originally appointed a guardian.

2013Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 , 2006-Ohio-5858 , 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 11 . {¶ 13} With these principles guiding our analysis, we now consider the mandamus claim. {¶ 14} McQueen submitted a written request for a guardianship-review hearing after the expiration of 120 days from the date the probate court had originally appointed a guardian.

2009Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17 , 2009-Ohio-5947 .] Public records — R.C 149.43 — Mandamus claim rendered moot once requested records were produced — Claim for attorney fees not moot.

2009Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17 , 2009-Ohio-5947 .] Public records — R.C 149.43 — Mandamus claim rendered moot once requested records were produced — Claim for attorney fees not moot.

2013Montgomery No. 20272, 2004-Ohio-4367, ¶ 8 . {¶ 10} Respondents contend that Brown’s mandamus claim is moot because she has been provided the documents she requested. “ ‘In general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot.’ ” State ex rel.

2012Montgomery No. 20272, 2004-Ohio-4367, ¶ 8 . {¶ 9} Respondent contends that Moore’s mandamus claim is moot because he has been provided the public records that he requested, with the exception of the “ruling on the Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in the case of Satterwhite Investments Lmt. -vs- Marvin Johnson.”1 Moore concedes that he has received all records requested that are in Respondent’s possession. “ ‘In general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot.’ ” State ex rel.

2012Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2007-Ohio-5022 , 875 N.E.2d 59, ¶ 28-29 , including the fact that it was a mandamus claim against a foreign municipality by a property owner who attempted to challenge the rezoning of contiguous land from one industrial use to another. {¶ 31} Having clarified the scope of Clifton, we hold that it applies in full force to the mandamus portion of the property owners’ complaint (count two), which seeks a writ to compel Middletown to appropriate property in Monroe and compensation for the appropriation.

2012Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2007-Ohio-5022 , 875 N.E.2d 59, ¶ 28-29 , including the fact that it was a mandamus claim against a foreign municipality by a property owner who attempted to challenge the rezoning of contiguous land from one industrial use to another. {¶ 31} Having clarified the scope of Clifton, we hold that it applies in full force to the mandamus portion of the property owners’ complaint (count two), which seeks a writ to compel Middletown to appropriate property in Monroe and compensation for the appropriation.

2009Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 106 Ohio St.3d 113 , 2005-Ohio-6549 , 832 N.E.2d 711, ¶ 16 . {¶ 15} Although the Blade is correct in stating that a respondent in a public-records case must establish that it has provided the requested records to moot the mandamus claim, see State ex rel.

2008Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 106 Ohio St.3d 113 , 2005-Ohio-6549 , 832 N.E.2d 711, ¶ 16 (in general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot). {¶ 44} Second, in general, a “ ‘writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the general observance of laws in the future.’ ” State ex rel.

2009Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty. (1986), 478 U.S. 1, 6 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 ; * * * Therefore, * * * the mere fact that Veillette’s suicide led to Judge Heath’s lifting of the sealing order did not render the Enquirer’s mandamus claim moot. * * * In addition, even if the Enquirer’s mandamus claim were properly dismissed as moot, a claim for attorney fees in a public-records mandamus action is not rendered moot by the provision of the requested records after the case has been filed.” State ex rel.

2009Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty. (1986), 478 U.S. 1, 6 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 ; * * * Therefore, * * * the mere fact that Veillette’s suicide led to Judge Heath’s lifting of the sealing order did not render the Enquirer’s mandamus claim moot. * * * In addition, even if the Enquirer’s mandamus claim were properly dismissed as moot, a claim for attorney fees in a public-records mandamus action is not rendered moot by the provision of the requested records after the case has been filed.” State ex rel.

2007Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176 , 180 . {¶ 7} In light of the limited purpose of the writ, this court has held that if the trial judge has already performed the particular act which the relator seeks to compel, the merits of the mandamus claim will be considered moot and the entire action will be subject to dismissal.

2007Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176 , 180 . {¶ 7} "In light of the limited purpose of the writ, this court has held that if the trial judge has already performed the particular act which the relator seeks to compel, the merits of the mandamus claim will be considered moot and the entire action will be subject to dismissal.

2004Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634 , 716 N.E.2d 704 . {¶ 22} Therefore, because the true objective of relators’ mandamus claim is to prevent the Secretary of State from determining that the supplemental petition is sufficient and placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2, 2004 election ballot, we lack jurisdiction over the mandamus claim and must dismiss it.

2004Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634 , 716 N.E.2d 704 . {¶ 22} Therefore, because the true objective of relators’ mandamus claim is to prevent the Secretary of State from determining that the supplemental petition is sufficient and placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2, 2004 election ballot, we lack jurisdiction over the mandamus claim and must dismiss it.

1998Willis v. Sheboy (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 167 , 6 OBR 225, 451 N.E.2d 1200 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 18} But to the extent that appellants’ mandamus claim involves those cases in which the OBES Administrator determines within the R.C. 4115.16(B) sixty-day period that an intentional violation of the prevailing wage law has occurred, R.C. 4115.16(A) and (B) do not provide an adequate legal remedy.

1998Willis v. Sheboy (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 167 , 6 OBR 225, 451 N.E.2d 1200 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 18} But to the extent that appellants’ mandamus claim involves those cases in which the OBES Administrator determines within the R.C. 4115.16(B) sixty-day period that an intentional violation of the prevailing wage law has occurred, R.C. 4115.16(A) and (B) do not provide an adequate legal remedy.

2026Fenstermaker v. McConville, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-530 .] Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 2969.25’s requirements do not apply to original actions filed in Supreme Court of Ohio—Existence of particular record in public office’s records schedule does not necessarily mean that public office possesses that record—Mandamus claim regarding record produced by public office is moot, but relator is entitled to statutory damages because public office’s failure to produce record for nearly three months constitutes a failure to produce within reasonable time—Writ denied, relator awarded $700 in