Ohio Supreme Court, 1987

State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 16, 1987 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright

34 Ohio St. 3d 46; 516 N.E.2d 234; 1987 Ohio LEXIS 449

Cases that cite this one

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

State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2017)
State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State ex rel. April Mgt., Ltd. v. Mayfield Hts. (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Caldwell (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
S/O v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's Office, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Stanley, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Portage Lakes Education Ass'n v. State Employment Relations Board (Ohio 2002)
State ex rel. Portage Lakes Edn. Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (Ohio 2002)
State Ex Rel. Drake v. Fuerst, Unpublished Decision (5-20-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. Calvin v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-20-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Wagner (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Department of Law (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Master v. City of Cleveland (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Squire v. Taft (Ohio 1994)
Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. Dayton City School District Board of Education (Ohio 1991)
State ex rel. Court Index Press, Inc. v. Deters (Ohio 1990)
Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 9-06-33 (4-23-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Tunison v. Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Stange, Unpublished Decision (3-18-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Stewart, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

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.

Appellant contends that appellee has a clear legal duty to prosecute the witness for falsification and that failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. We disagree.

Appellant states that he filed a criminal complaint against the witness charging falsification, that the complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause, and that on appeal, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal. Appellant contends (1) that appellee has a clear legal duty to prosecute a complaint that two courts have found to lack probable cause and (2) that failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. Doubtless, a prosecuting attorney’s discretion concerning prosecution is subject to some limits. See Peek v. Mitchell (C.A. 6, 1970), 419 F. 2d 575. *47This court has not ruled precisely on those, limits. However, to refuse to prosecute in this case is within any conceivable limits and is not an abuse of discretion.

Appellant has not proved a clear legal duty on the part of appellee or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

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