State ex rel. Hull v. Gaughan

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hull v. Gaughan

529 N.E.2d 1374, 39 Ohio St. 3d 145, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 333

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 19, 1988·No. No. 88-784·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In order for either mandamus or procedendo to issue, appellant must establish a clear legal right to the relief requested. State, ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 79, 80, 526 N.E. 2d 786, 787 (mandamus); State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28, 29, 6 OBR 50, 50-51, 451 N.E. 2d 225, 226 (mandamus); State, ex rel. Smith, v. Friedman (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 25, 51 O.O. 2d 41, 257 N.E. 2d 386, paragraph two of the syllabus (procedendo); State, ex rel. Ratliff, v. Marshall (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 101, 102, 59 O.O. 2d 114, 115, 282 N.E. 2d 582, 584 (procedendo).

This court has held that where a verbatim transcript of proceedings exists and there is no allegation that one cannot be provided, there is no clear duty to sign a narrative statement supplied pursuant to App. R. 9(C). State, ex rel. Corona, v. Harris (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 95, 17 O.O. 3d 58, 406 N.E. 2d 1120. Indeed, the rule itself makes [147] this plain. It provides that such statements are proper only “[i]f no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable * *

Accordingly, the court of appeals’ decision dismissing the petitions in mandamus and procedendo must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

In order for either mandamus or procedendo to issue, appellant must establish a clear legal right to the relief requested. State, ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 79, 80, 526 N.E. 2d 786, 787 (mandamus); State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28, 29, 6 OBR 50, 50-51, 451 N.E. 2d 225, 226 (mandamus); State, ex rel. Smith, v. Friedman (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 25, 51 O.O. 2d 41, 257 N.E. 2d 386, paragraph two of the syllabus (procedendo); State, ex rel. Ratliff, v. Marshall (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 101, 102, 59 O.O. 2d 114, 115, 282 N.E. 2d 582, 584 (procedendo).

This court has held that where a verbatim transcript of proceedings exists and there is no allegation that one cannot be provided, there is no clear duty to sign a narrative statement supplied pursuant to App. R. 9(C). State, ex rel. Corona, v. Harris (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 95, 17 O.O. 3d 58, 406 N.E. 2d 1120. Indeed, the rule itself makes [147] this plain. It provides that such statements are proper only “[i]f no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable * *

Accordingly, the court of appeals’ decision dismissing the petitions in mandamus and procedendo must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

State ex rel. Hull v. Gaughan, 529 N.E.2d 1374, 39 Ohio St. 3d 145, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 333 (Ohio 1988).

Pincite

529 N.E.2d 1374 (State ex rel. Hull v. Gaughan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related