Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department

Ohio Supreme Court

Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department

664 N.E.2d 521, 75 Ohio St. 3d 508

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 29, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2002

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 664 N.E.2d 521 (Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department, 664 N.E.2d 521, 75 Ohio St. 3d 508 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Litigaide’s action is subject to dismissal for the following reasons. Litigaide failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because its complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of Litigaide. Respondent raised this objection in its answer and brief on the merits, but Litigaide failed to seek leave to amend its complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04. Therefore, Litigaide’s mandamus action must be dismissed. See State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532-533, 653 N.E.2d 349, 352-353; Civ.R. 17(A); Maloney v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 19 O.O.2d 51, 52, 181 N.E.2d 268, 269.

In addition, to the extent that Litigaide requests injunctive relief, its claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1. 3. 640 N.E.2d 1136. 1137-1138.

[509]*509Accordingly, the cause is dismissed, and Litigaide’s request for attorney fees is denied.

Cause dismissed.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Litigaide’s action is subject to dismissal for the following reasons. Litigaide failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because its complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of Litigaide. Respondent raised this objection in its answer and brief on the merits, but Litigaide failed to seek leave to amend its complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04. Therefore, Litigaide’s mandamus action must be dismissed. See State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532-533, 653 N.E.2d 349, 352-353; Civ.R. 17(A); Maloney v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 19 O.O.2d 51, 52, 181 N.E.2d 268, 269.

In addition, to the extent that Litigaide requests injunctive relief, its claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1. 3. 640 N.E.2d 1136. 1137-1138.

[509]*509Accordingly, the cause is dismissed, and Litigaide’s request for attorney fees is denied.

Cause dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 N.E.2d 521, 75 Ohio St. 3d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litigaide-inc-v-custodian-of-records-for-lakewood-police-department-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack