State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes

374 N.E.2d 641, 54 Ohio St. 2d 41, 8 Ohio Op. 3d 36, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 530
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 12, 1978
DocketNo. 77-1207
StatusPublished
Cited by185 cases

This text of 374 N.E.2d 641 (State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes) 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. Harris v. Rhodes, 374 N.E.2d 641, 54 Ohio St. 2d 41, 8 Ohio Op. 3d 36, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 530 (Ohio 1978).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In order to he entitled to a writ of man-damns, relator must show (1) that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. National City Bank, v. Bd. of Education (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 81.

Relator asserts that the requested records are “public records” which, pursuant to R. C. 149.43, “shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection.”

However, the requested records are not public records under R. C. 149.43, which states, in part:

“‘[P]ublic record’ means any record required to be kept by any governmental unit * * * except records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations, * * * probation and parole proceedings, and records the release of which is prohibited by state * * * law.” (Emphasis added.)

Records and files of prisoners are compiled pursuant to R. C. 5145.04, 5145.20 and 5145.22. These records are maintained under R. C. 5120.21, which states, in part:

“The department of rehabilitation and correction shall keep in its office, accessible only to its employees, * * * a record showing the name, residence, sex, age, nativity, occupation, condition, and date of entrance or commitment of every inmate in the several institutions governed by it * * *.” (Emphasis added.)

Relator has shown no clear legal right to the relief prayed for. Therefore, the writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ.denied.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brows,’ P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections
2024 Ohio 1478 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State ex rel. Collins v. Kilbane
2023 Ohio 1577 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. Jones v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
2023 Ohio 1340 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. Hemmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections
2023 Ohio 1148 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. Blachere v. Tyack
2023 Ohio 781 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Beverly v. Clancy
2021 Ohio 3104 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
In re Wesley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
2020 Ohio 4921 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State ex rel. Bloodworth v. Bogan
2017 Ohio 7810 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
State v. Lacy
2014 Ohio 3858 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
State ex rel. April Mgt., Ltd. v. Mayfield Hts.
2013 Ohio 5465 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State ex rel. Moore v. Montgomery Cty. Clerk of Courts
2012 Ohio 5782 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
State ex rel. Mansfield Motorsports Speedway, L.L.C. v. Dropsey
2012 Ohio 968 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
State ex rel. Ulery v. Capper
2012 Ohio 147 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Sutula
2011 Ohio 6086 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
State v. Miami Cty. Sheriff's Office
2011 Ohio 6125 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Hunter v. Britten
907 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 N.E.2d 641, 54 Ohio St. 2d 41, 8 Ohio Op. 3d 36, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-harris-v-rhodes-ohio-1978.