Patel v. Crawford

2012 Ohio 4229, 976 N.E.2d 877, 133 Ohio St. 3d 138
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 19, 2012
Docket2012-0728
StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 4229 (Patel v. Crawford) 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
Patel v. Crawford, 2012 Ohio 4229, 976 N.E.2d 877, 133 Ohio St. 3d 138 (Ohio 2012).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*139 Arvind and Bharati Patel, pro se. Chris Berhalter, Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David K. Liberati, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellants, Arvind and Bharati Patel, for a writ of mandamus. The Patels sought the writ to compel appellee, Judge Dale A. Crawford, sitting by assignment in Longwell v. Patel, Belmont C.P. No. 03-CY-036, to hear appellant Arvind Patel’s motion for sanctions “prior to presiding over the trial” in the case. 1 Appellants could not establish either a clear legal right to the requested extraordinary relief or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Judge Crawford to provide it because the case was dismissed before any trial could occur.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
1

. The court of appeals also dismissed appellants’ claims for a continuance, to give them time to retain counsel and to appoint a translator to aid appellant Bharati Patel at trial, but appellants do not claim any error in the court’s holding on these claims in this appeal.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 4229, 976 N.E.2d 877, 133 Ohio St. 3d 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patel-v-crawford-ohio-2012.