State ex rel. Jones v. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Jones v. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

665 N.E.2d 673, 75 Ohio St. 3d 642, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 403

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1996

DocketNo. 96-584

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 665 N.E.2d 673 (State ex rel. Jones v. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas) 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. Jones v. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 665 N.E.2d 673, 75 Ohio St. 3d 642, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 403 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Jones possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to obtain the requested transcripts, i.e., his motion in the court of appeals in his pending appeal. See, generally, State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 592, 639 N.E.2d 1189, 1194-1195.

Jones’s contention-that his mandamus action took precedence over his subsequently filed motion for transcripts is meritless. See State ex rel. Newton v. Court of Claims (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 553, 557, 653 N.E.2d 366, 370, quoting Oregon v. Dansack (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 623 N.E.2d 20, 22 (“[I]n mandamus actions, ‘a court is not limited to considering facts and circumstances at the time a proceeding is instituted, but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines to issue a peremptory writ.’ ”). In addition, the mere fact that the court of appeals subsequently overruled Jones’s motion for transcripts did not render that remedy inadequate. See State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 205, 209, 648 N.E.2d 823, 827.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Jones possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to obtain the requested transcripts, i.e., his motion in the court of appeals in his pending appeal. See, generally, State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 592, 639 N.E.2d 1189, 1194-1195.

Jones’s contention-that his mandamus action took precedence over his subsequently filed motion for transcripts is meritless. See State ex rel. Newton v. Court of Claims (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 553, 557, 653 N.E.2d 366, 370, quoting Oregon v. Dansack (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 623 N.E.2d 20, 22 (“[I]n mandamus actions, ‘a court is not limited to considering facts and circumstances at the time a proceeding is instituted, but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines to issue a peremptory writ.’ ”). In addition, the mere fact that the court of appeals subsequently overruled Jones’s motion for transcripts did not render that remedy inadequate. See State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 205, 209, 648 N.E.2d 823, 827.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 N.E.2d 673, 75 Ohio St. 3d 642, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-jones-v-montgomery-county-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack