Respondents motion in Ohio

2016Cuyahoga No. 99259, 2013-Ohio-1567, ¶ 2 . {¶3} Respondents’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and Carter’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

2014Cuyahoga No. 99259, 2013-Ohio-1567, ¶ 2 . {¶4} Respondents’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

2023“Application of the doctrine of res judicata/collateral estoppel to a particular issue is a question of law.” Lycan v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2020-0341, 2022-Ohio-4676 , 2022 WL 17980975 , at ¶ 21; see State ex rel.

2023Carr v. Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2006-Ohio-6714, at ¶ 29 . {¶13| Complicating the analysis in this case is the fact that the trial Washington App. No. 22CA9 11 court granted Respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on application of the doctrine of res judicata.

2023Carr v. Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2006-Ohio-6714, at ¶ 29 . {¶13| Complicating the analysis in this case is the fact that the trial Washington App. No. 22CA9 11 court granted Respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on application of the doctrine of res judicata.

2021No. 30051 Page 7 of 10 161 Ohio St.3d 130 , 2020-Ohio-3686, ¶ 26 , quoting State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012- Ohio-2577, ¶ 81. {¶15} According to Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and the affidavits and evidence attached thereto, Respondents were not aware of Mr. Ware’s public records request until they were served with his complaint for a writ of mandamus.

2021No. 30051 Page 7 of 10 161 Ohio St.3d 130 , 2020-Ohio-3686, ¶ 26 , quoting State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012- Ohio-2577, ¶ 81. {¶15} According to Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and the affidavits and evidence attached thereto, Respondents were not aware of Mr. Ware’s public records request until they were served with his complaint for a writ of mandamus.

2016Sunderman v. Barber, 139 Ohio St. 84 , 38 N.E.2d 318 (1941) (finding relator has or had adequate remedies at law through appeal and motions for stay, which precluded the issuance of a writ of prohibition.) {¶11} Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the writ is dismissed.

2016Sunderman v. Barber, 139 Ohio St. 84 , 38 N.E.2d 318 (1941) (finding relator has or had adequate remedies at law through appeal and motions for stay, which precluded the issuance of a writ of prohibition.) {¶11} Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the writ is dismissed.

2012Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278 , 1996-Ohio-117 , 648 N.E.2d 723 . {¶3} Accordingly, we grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

2012Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278 , 1996-Ohio-117 , 648 N.E.2d 723 . {¶3} Accordingly, we grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

2008Respondents' claim that the magistrate prejudicially erred in his conclusions of law by failing to rely on Shemo , notwithstanding Shelly Materials , is therefore not well-taken. {¶ 12} Additionally, the magistrate's reliance on precedents of the United States Supreme Court, such as Lingle v. Chevron Oil, U.S.A., Inc. (2005), 544 U.S. 528 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , and Penn Cent.

2008Respondents' claim that the magistrate prejudicially erred in his conclusions of law by failing to rely on Shemo , notwithstanding Shelly Materials , is therefore not well-taken. {¶ 12} Additionally, the magistrate's reliance on precedents of the United States Supreme Court, such as Lingle v. Chevron Oil, U.S.A., Inc. (2005), 544 U.S. 528 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , and Penn Cent.

2008Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron (2004), 104 Ohio St.3d 399 , 2004-Ohio6557; See, also, Glasgow v. Jones (2008), 119 Ohio St.3d 391 , 2008-Ohio-4788 . {¶ 8} In the instant case, after consideration of Respondents' brief in response, we are compelled to conclude that a writ of mandamus should issue.

2007The standard for granting summary judgment is set out in Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 344 , 346 , 617 N.E.2d 1129 : {¶ 21} "Under Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper when `(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.' Temple

2007The standard for granting summary judgment is set out in Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 344 , 346 , 617 N.E.2d 1129 : {¶ 21} "Under Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper when `(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.' Temple

2007Martinelli, v. Corrigan (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 243 , 245 , 593 N.E.2d 364 . {¶ 19} For these reasons, Respondents' motion to dismiss is hereby overruled. {¶ 20} We next move on to consider Respondents' motion for summary judgment.

2007Martinelli, v. Corrigan (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 243 , 245 , 593 N.E.2d 364 . {¶ 19} For these reasons, Respondents' motion to dismiss is hereby overruled. {¶ 20} We next move on to consider Respondents' motion for summary judgment.

2007The standard for granting summary judgment is set out in Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 344 , 346 , 617 N.E.2d 1129 : {¶ 21} "Under Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper when `(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.' Temple

2007Dehler v. Sutula (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 33 , 656 N.E.2d 332 . {¶ 10} First, we will address Respondents' motion to dismiss. {¶ 11} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted when it appears beyond doubt from the face of the petition, presuming the allegations contained therein are true, that the Relator can prove no facts which would warrant the relief sought.

2007Dehler v. Sutula (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 33 , 656 N.E.2d 332 . {¶ 10} First, we will address Respondents' motion to dismiss. {¶ 11} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted when it appears beyond doubt from the face of the petition, presuming the allegations contained therein are true, that the Relator can prove no facts which would warrant the relief sought.

2007State v. Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394 , 398 , 623 N.E.2d 1336 . {¶ 22} For these reasons, the Respondents' motion to dismiss is granted and *Page 5 this complaint is dismissed.

2007State v. Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394 , 398 , 623 N.E.2d 1336 . {¶ 22} For these reasons, the Respondents' motion to dismiss is granted and *Page 5 this complaint is dismissed.

2006McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307 , 784 N.E.2d 108 , 2003-Ohio-858 ; Boyd v. Money (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388 , 389 , 696 N.E.2d 568 . {¶ 5} Petitioner has attempted to cure his error by the later submission of his commitment papers, which were filed with this Court after Respondents' motion to dismiss.

2006McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307 , 784 N.E.2d 108 , 2003-Ohio-858 ; Boyd v. Money (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388 , 389 , 696 N.E.2d 568 . {¶ 5} Petitioner has attempted to cure his error by the later submission of his commitment papers, which were filed with this Court after Respondents' motion to dismiss.

2006McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307 , 784 N.E.2d 108 , 2003-Ohio-858 ; Boyd v. Money (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388 , 389 , 696 N.E.2d 568 . {¶ 5} Petitioner has attempted to cure his error by the later submission of his commitment papers, which were filed with this Court after Respondents' motion to dismiss.

2006McCuller v. Callahan, 98 Ohio St.3d 307 , 784 N.E.2d 108 , 2003-Ohio-858 ; Boyd v. Money (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388 , 389 , 696 N.E.2d 568 . {¶ 5} Petitioner has attempted to cure his error by the later submission of his commitment papers, which were filed with this Court after Respondents' motion to dismiss.

2004Sladoje v. Belskis, 149 Ohio App.3d 190 , 197 , 2002-Ohio-4505 , at ¶ 42-47 . {¶ 8} Upon reviewing the facts and the law in this cause, Respondents are not clearly entitled to a writ of prohibition and it must be denied. {¶ 9} The following facts are taken from Relators' complaint and Respondents' motion to dismiss: {¶ 10} The minor child is the daughter of Laura K.

2003Kopp v. Blackburn (1937), 132 Ohio St. 421 for a discussion of relevant law under the predecessor General Code. {¶ 19} On review of all evidentiary material submitted with Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact and Respondents' motion is sustained.

1999The court noted that, "if an individual THA [temporary help agency] can prove that it notified the respondents of the error prior to that date, the applicable commencement date may vary accordingly." Id. at 24 .