State ex rel. Drake v. Athens County Board of Elections
Cases that cite this one
67 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Havens-Tobias v. Eagle, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Mayer v. Bristow (Ohio 2000)
- Henderson v. Brost Foundry Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
- Castle Hill Holdings v. Al Hut, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
- Non-Employees v. Chateau Estates, Unpublished Decision (7-9-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Chinese Merchants Assoc. v. Chin (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Garofalo v. Chicago Title Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
- Dismukes v. Ashtabula Cty. Children Servs. Bd. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
- Bridges v. Gray (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
- Mehno v. Dattilio (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Kish v. Magyar (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Ogle v. Greco (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
- Federman v. Christ Hosp. (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudolph (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
- Murray Energy Corp. v. Pepper Pike, 90420 (6-9-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- Bradigan v. Strongsville City Schools, 88606 (6-7-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Bugg v. American Stand., Unpublished Decision (5-26-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales v. Verizon, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Chinese Merchants Assoc. v. Chin, Unpublished Decision (12-2-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Jones v. Bd. of Elections, Unpublished Decision (9-9-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Maloof v. Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Schirmer v. Mt. Auburn Obstetrics & Gynecologic Associates, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Davis v. Remy, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Walker v. Karp, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- Tucker v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (4-11-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
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
Relator appeals the denial of his. motion for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the dismissal of his complaint in mandamus.
Initially, we note that relator’s motion was filed out of rule. Civ. R. 52 requires a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law to be made “* * * before the journal entry of a final order, judgment, or decree has been approved by the court in writing and filed with the clerk of the court for journalization, or not later than seven days after the party filing the request has been given notice of the court’s announcement of its decision * * *.”
Relator’s motion requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was filed thirty-three days after his com
We, now, consider the merits of Drake’s appeal as of right. When a court dismisses a complaint pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6), it makes no factual findings beyond its legal conclusion that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, the court does not assume the role of factfinder and has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Paramount Supply Co. v. Sherlin Corp. (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 176, 180, 16 OBR 186, 190, 475 N.E. 2d 197, 202. See, also, Civ. R. 52.
As relator’s complaint in mandamus was dismissed pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6), the court of appeals was not required to file separate findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing his complaint in mandamus.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. .
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.