State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly

2009 Ohio 5259, 915 N.E.2d 1223, 123 Ohio St. 3d 297

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 7, 2009

Docket2009-1121

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 5259 (State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly) 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

State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 2009 Ohio 5259, 915 N.E.2d 1223, 123 Ohio St. 3d 297 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel a prison warden to provide properly fitting shoes to *298 appellant, Lambert Dehler. Mandamus will not compel the performance of an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6.

Lambert Dehler, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley Dawn Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly restricted its holding to Dehler himself because Dehler did not bring his mandamus case as a class action. See State ex rel. Ogan v. Teater (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 235, 247, 8 O.O.3d 217, 375 N.E.2d 1233 (“Where, as in the instant cause, the party bringing suit does not attempt to bring his cause of action within the provisions of Civ.R. 23, it is clear that the court may properly limit its holding to that of the party alone”). With that restriction, Dehler was unable to establish that his mandamus claim was not moot, i.e., he failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject to the same action again. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165, 2009-Ohio-590, 902 N.E.2d 976, ¶ 11.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel a prison warden to provide properly fitting shoes to *298 appellant, Lambert Dehler. Mandamus will not compel the performance of an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6.

Lambert Dehler, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley Dawn Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly restricted its holding to Dehler himself because Dehler did not bring his mandamus case as a class action. See State ex rel. Ogan v. Teater (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 235, 247, 8 O.O.3d 217, 375 N.E.2d 1233 (“Where, as in the instant cause, the party bringing suit does not attempt to bring his cause of action within the provisions of Civ.R. 23, it is clear that the court may properly limit its holding to that of the party alone”). With that restriction, Dehler was unable to establish that his mandamus claim was not moot, i.e., he failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject to the same action again. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165, 2009-Ohio-590, 902 N.E.2d 976, ¶ 11.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 5259, 915 N.E.2d 1223, 123 Ohio St. 3d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dehler-v-kelly-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack