State ex rel. Fant v. Trumbo

489 N.E.2d 1316, 22 Ohio St. 3d 207, 22 Ohio B. 359, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 577
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 12, 1986
DocketNo. 85-566
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 489 N.E.2d 1316 (State ex rel. Fant v. Trumbo) 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. Trumbo, 489 N.E.2d 1316, 22 Ohio St. 3d 207, 22 Ohio B. 359, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 577 (Ohio 1986).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee’s February 27, 1985 filing with the clerk of the municipal court of his own statement of the evidence or proceedings mooted the relief requested by appellant in the mandamus action filed below.

The court of appeals properly found that “* * * the App. R. 9(C) record now settled by the trial judge satisfied his duty in this matter by reciting that the trial judge heard no further evidence after receiving the referee’s report.” Moreover, while App. R. 9(C) does mandate settlement and approval by the trial court of a statement of evidence or proceedings, [209]*209such approval is not required by the trial court as to those statements of evidence or proceedings which the trial court finds inaccurate.

Any questions appellant has concerning the adequacy or accuracy of appellee’s statement of the evidence or proceedings can be raised on appeal to the court of appeals. App. R. 9(E) provides that “* * * either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. All other questions as to the form and content of the record shall be presented to the court of appeals.”

By reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals, dismissing the mandamus complaint, is hereby 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

Related

State ex rel. Dabernig v. Earley
2025 Ohio 3288 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Javitch Block, L.L.C. v. Shaughnessy
2021 Ohio 436 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Lambrecht, Unpublished Decision (11-4-2005)
2005 Ohio 5882 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Squires v. John Shelly Painting, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005)
2005 Ohio 5285 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State Ex Rel. Hall v. Watkins
710 N.E.2d 723 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Hunter
1992 Ohio 50 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 N.E.2d 1316, 22 Ohio St. 3d 207, 22 Ohio B. 359, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-fant-v-trumbo-ohio-1986.