State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes

502 N.E.2d 597, 28 Ohio St. 3d 90, 28 Ohio B. 185, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 872

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 24, 1986

DocketNo. 86-278

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 502 N.E.2d 597 (State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes) 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. Fant v. Sykes, 502 N.E.2d 597, 28 Ohio St. 3d 90, 28 Ohio B. 185, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 872 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant urges that the referee was duty bound under Civ. R. 53 and Evid. R. 614 to require appellee to produce the necessary documentation to support appellant’s claim that the original lists furnished by appellee were illegible. The foregoing rules cited by appellant include the discretionary word “may.” Thus, appellant’s contention must fail.

Appellant’s primary contention should have been more appropriately directed to the accuracy of the referee’s conclusion that there was insufficient proof to establish that the original lists in question submitted by the appellee were illegible. Nonetheless, a review of the proceedings below reflects that appellant had ample time and opportunity as he vigorously pursued discovery, to submit, if he chose, the necessary documentation to support his claim; As we noted in the third paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Szekely, v. Indus. Comm. (1968), 15 Ohio St. 2d 237 [44 O.O. 2d 225], “[b]efore a writ of mandamus will be granted, a clear legal right thereto must be shown, and the burden of establishing such right is upon the relator. * * *” No such clear legal right has been shown by appellant in the instant case.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant urges that the referee was duty bound under Civ. R. 53 and Evid. R. 614 to require appellee to produce the necessary documentation to support appellant’s claim that the original lists furnished by appellee were illegible. The foregoing rules cited by appellant include the discretionary word “may.” Thus, appellant’s contention must fail.

Appellant’s primary contention should have been more appropriately directed to the accuracy of the referee’s conclusion that there was insufficient proof to establish that the original lists in question submitted by the appellee were illegible. Nonetheless, a review of the proceedings below reflects that appellant had ample time and opportunity as he vigorously pursued discovery, to submit, if he chose, the necessary documentation to support his claim; As we noted in the third paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Szekely, v. Indus. Comm. (1968), 15 Ohio St. 2d 237 [44 O.O. 2d 225], “[b]efore a writ of mandamus will be granted, a clear legal right thereto must be shown, and the burden of establishing such right is upon the relator. * * *” No such clear legal right has been shown by appellant in the instant case.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 N.E.2d 597, 28 Ohio St. 3d 90, 28 Ohio B. 185, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-fant-v-sykes-ohio-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack