State ex rel. Kaldor v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Kaldor v. Court of Common Pleas

459 N.E.2d 517, 9 Ohio St. 3d 114, 9 Ohio B. 339, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1017

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1984

DocketNo. 83-674

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 459 N.E.2d 517 (State ex rel. Kaldor v. 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. Kaldor v. Court of Common Pleas, 459 N.E.2d 517, 9 Ohio St. 3d 114, 9 Ohio B. 339, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1017 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As noted in State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141 [40 O.O.2d 141], mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the third paragraph of the syllabus therein states in part that when “* * * it is determined that the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals has authority to exercise jurisdictional discretion but those courts are required to deny the writ.” The exhaustion of the plain [115]*115and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law is a prerequisite to the issuance of such writ.

As to the adequacy of the remedy of appeal, appellant likens his situation with that involved in State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 217. In Mapson, however, the trial court issued no findings of fact and conclusions of law which deprived both the postconviction petitioner and the appellate court of the grounds supporting the judgment and, hence, prevented meaningful review. Here, findings of fact and conclusions of law were issued and reasons were given for the restrictions imposed at the evidentiary hearing. Thus, the denial of postconviction relief by the trial court is susceptible to plain and adequate review by way of appeal.¹

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals, denying the writ, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

As noted in State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141 [40 O.O.2d 141], mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the third paragraph of the syllabus therein states in part that when “* * * it is determined that the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals has authority to exercise jurisdictional discretion but those courts are required to deny the writ.” The exhaustion of the plain [115]*115and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law is a prerequisite to the issuance of such writ.

As to the adequacy of the remedy of appeal, appellant likens his situation with that involved in State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 217. In Mapson, however, the trial court issued no findings of fact and conclusions of law which deprived both the postconviction petitioner and the appellate court of the grounds supporting the judgment and, hence, prevented meaningful review. Here, findings of fact and conclusions of law were issued and reasons were given for the restrictions imposed at the evidentiary hearing. Thus, the denial of postconviction relief by the trial court is susceptible to plain and adequate review by way of appeal.¹

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals, denying the writ, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 N.E.2d 517, 9 Ohio St. 3d 114, 9 Ohio B. 339, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kaldor-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack