State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy

1997 Ohio 125, 80 Ohio St. 3d 222

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 5, 1997

Docket1997-0999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1997 Ohio 125 (State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy) 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. Thomson v. Doneghy, 1997 Ohio 125, 80 Ohio St. 3d 222 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports 80 Ohio St.3d 222.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] THOMSON, APPELLANT, V. DONEGHY, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy, 1997-Ohio-125.] Public records—Production of records renders moot action for mandamus to compel such production. (No. 97-999—Submitted September 9, 1997—Decided November 5, 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-97-1079. __________________ {¶ 1} In March 1997, appellant, Michael E. Thomson, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Lucas County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Doneghy and Lucas County Clerk of Courts Harry Barlos, to provide him copies of (1) the February 1997 findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by Judge Doneghy dismissing his petition for postconviction relief, and (2) the last three pages of his criminal appearance docket. Thomson alleged that he had previously requested the findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R.C. 149.43. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, attaching the requested documents, which indicated that they had previously been sent to Thomson. The court of appeals dismissed Thomson’s complaint based on mootness. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Michael E. Thomson, pro se. Damian M. P. Rodgers, Lucas County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. __________________

Per Curiam. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} 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. 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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports 80 Ohio St.3d 222.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] THOMSON, APPELLANT, V. DONEGHY, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy, 1997-Ohio-125.] Public records—Production of records renders moot action for mandamus to compel such production. (No. 97-999—Submitted September 9, 1997—Decided November 5, 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-97-1079. __________________ {¶ 1} In March 1997, appellant, Michael E. Thomson, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Lucas County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Doneghy and Lucas County Clerk of Courts Harry Barlos, to provide him copies of (1) the February 1997 findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by Judge Doneghy dismissing his petition for postconviction relief, and (2) the last three pages of his criminal appearance docket. Thomson alleged that he had previously requested the findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R.C. 149.43. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, attaching the requested documents, which indicated that they had previously been sent to Thomson. The court of appeals dismissed Thomson’s complaint based on mootness. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Michael E. Thomson, pro se. Damian M. P. Rodgers, Lucas County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. __________________

Per Curiam. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} 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. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. RESNICK, J., not participating. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Ohio 125, 80 Ohio St. 3d 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-thomson-v-doneghy-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack