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

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 19, 1988

DocketNo. 88-784

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

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

Pincite

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]*147this 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]*147this 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 N.E.2d 1374, 39 Ohio St. 3d 145, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hull-v-gaughan-ohio-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack