Ohio Supreme Court, 1978

State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 12, 1978 · Brown, Brows, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney

54 Ohio St. 2d 41; 374 N.E.2d 641; 8 Ohio Op. 3d 36; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 530

Cases that cite this one

183 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State Ex Rel. Arnold v. Belmont Corrections Infirmary (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2014)
State ex rel. Hemmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
State ex rel. Collins v. Kilbane (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
Hunter v. Britten (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State Ex Rel. Pankey v. Cronin, 08 Ma 255 (3-3-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
Scott Group v. Franken, 08 Ma 207 (11-26-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State ex rel. American Legion Post 25 v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (Ohio 2008)
oapse/afscme Local 4 v. Berdine (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State Ex Rel. Brown v. Rhodes, Unpublished Decision (7-3-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Conley v. Correctional Reception Center (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel. Billingsley v. City of Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel. O'Donnell v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State Ex Rel. Buoscio v. Krichbaum, Unpublished Decision (3-24-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Vivo, Unpublished Decision (6-24-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Clements v. Trustees of Monroe Township (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
State Ex Rel. Sneary v. Miller (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (Ohio 1993)
State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Kirtz v. Corrigan (Ohio 1991)
State ex rel. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Compensation Board v. Withrow (Ohio 1991)
State, Ex Rel. Gooden v. Martin (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Markel v. Ohio State Medical Board (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
Wilson v. Patton (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

In order to he entitled to a writ of man-damns, relator must show (1) that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. National City Bank, v. Bd. of Education (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 81.

Relator asserts that the requested records are “public records” which, pursuant to R. C. 149.43, “shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection.”

However, the requested records are not public records under R. C. 149.43, which states, in part:

“‘[P]ublic record’ means any record required to be kept by any governmental unit * * * except records pertaining to physical or psychiatric examinations, * * * probation and parole proceedings, and records the release of which is prohibited by state * * * law.” (Emphasis added.)

Records and files of prisoners are compiled pursuant to R. C. 5145.04, 5145.20 and 5145.22. These records are maintained under R. C. 5120.21, which states, in part:

“The department of rehabilitation and correction shall keep in its office, accessible only to its employees, * * * a record showing the name, residence, sex, age, nativity, occupation, condition, and date of entrance or commitment of every inmate in the several institutions governed by it * * *.” (Emphasis added.)

Relator has shown no clear legal right to the relief prayed for. Therefore, the writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ.denied.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brows,’ P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.