State Ex Rel. Grahek v. McCafferty, Unpublished Decision (9-11-2006)
State Ex Rel. Grahek v. McCafferty, Unpublished Decision (9-11-2006)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Initially, we find that Grahek 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; State exrel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899.
{¶ 3} Grahek also failed to comply with R.C.
{¶ 4} Despite the aforesaid procedural defects, a substantive review of Grahek's complaint fails to establish that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. 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. Moreover, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which is to be exercised with caution and only when the right is clear. It should not be issued in doubtful cases. Stateex rel. Taylor v. Glasser (1977),
{¶ 5} In this matter, Grahek filed a motion for production of transcripts which was denied by Judge McCafferty on July 18, 2006. At that time, Grahek could have appealed Judge McCafferty's ruling. Since Grahek possessed an adequate remedy at law, regardless of whether he filed an appeal or not, relief in mandamus is precluded. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath,
{¶ 6} Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ Dismissed.
James J. Sweeney, P.J., and Christine T. McMonagle, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.