Martin v. Judges of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

Martin v. Judges of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

552 N.E.2d 906, 50 Ohio St. 3d 71, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 139

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1990

DocketNo. 90-1

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 552 N.E.2d 906 (Martin v. Judges of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas) 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

Martin v. Judges of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 552 N.E.2d 906, 50 Ohio St. 3d 71, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 139 (Ohio 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In his argument in the court of appeals, appellant apparently sought to vindicate a statutory right to speedy action on his motion for a transcript. Here, he alleges violations of rights via alleged procedural errors in the trial court. Appellant’s assertions of various violations of constitutional and statutory rights have no remedy in procedendo [72]*72or mandamus. The former writ commands a lower court to proceed to judgment; the latter orders a public official to perform a clear legal duty. The record shows that appellees granted appellant’s motion for production of transcript on April 20, 1989, and that it was mailed to him on November 22, 1989. Neither procedendo nor mandamus may compel appellees to perform a duty already performed. State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 164, 4 O.O. 3d 352, 363 N.E. 2d 743. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

In his argument in the court of appeals, appellant apparently sought to vindicate a statutory right to speedy action on his motion for a transcript. Here, he alleges violations of rights via alleged procedural errors in the trial court. Appellant’s assertions of various violations of constitutional and statutory rights have no remedy in procedendo [72]*72or mandamus. The former writ commands a lower court to proceed to judgment; the latter orders a public official to perform a clear legal duty. The record shows that appellees granted appellant’s motion for production of transcript on April 20, 1989, and that it was mailed to him on November 22, 1989. Neither procedendo nor mandamus may compel appellees to perform a duty already performed. State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 164, 4 O.O. 3d 352, 363 N.E. 2d 743. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 N.E.2d 906, 50 Ohio St. 3d 71, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-judges-of-the-lucas-county-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack