State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy

685 N.E.2d 537, 80 Ohio St. 3d 222

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 5, 1997·No. No. 97-999·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 N.E.2d 1049 (respondent’s production of records renders moot claim for mandamus to compel such production). Further, Thomson had an adequate remedy to contend that he was entitled to an additional thirty days to perfect his appeal from Judge Doneghy’s judgment by his pending appeal from that judgment. Cf. Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851.

Judgment affirmed.

[223] Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 N.E.2d 1049 (respondent’s production of records renders moot claim for mandamus to compel such production). Further, Thomson had an adequate remedy to contend that he was entitled to an additional thirty days to perfect his appeal from Judge Doneghy’s judgment by his pending appeal from that judgment. Cf. Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851.

Judgment affirmed.

[223] Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., not participating.

State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy, 685 N.E.2d 537, 80 Ohio St. 3d 222 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

685 N.E.2d 537 (State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related