State Ex Rel Brown v. Corrigan, Unpublished Decision (4-18-2002)
State Ex Rel Brown v. Corrigan, Unpublished Decision (4-18-2002)
Opinion of the Court
¶ 2 As established by the attached journal entry, the subject motion has been resolved. The court granted seventy-seven days of jail time credit, as Brown sought in his motion. The ruling on the motion has fulfilled the court's duty and granted the relator the relief he sought through mandamus. Thus, this mandamus action is moot.
¶ 3 The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief, and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Additionally, although mandamus may be used to compel a court to exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987),
¶ 4 Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit "specifying the details of the claim" as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported and State ex rel. Smith v.McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899, unreported.
¶ 5 Accordingly, the court denies the writ. Respondent to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ Denied.
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, P.J., AND PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.