Ohio Supreme Court, 1992

State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 5, 1992 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

62 Ohio St. 3d 455; 584 N.E.2d 664; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 126

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Sprague v. Wellington (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State ex rel. A.F. Krainz Co., L.L.C. v. Jackson (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
Strothers v. Norton (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
Capers v. White, Unpublished Decision (4-17-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Farley v. McIntosh (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Board (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Cater v. City of North Olmsted (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. City of Akron (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Cater v. N. Olmsted (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Trustees (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.

For the purposes of the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.011 defines “records” as including:

“ * * * any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.”

The information sought by appellant is not a document, device, or item, as required by this definition; therefore, it is not a record. Since the information in question is not a record, it is not a public record subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. Moreover, the Public Records Act does not compel appellee to *456create a new document to satisfy appellant’s demands. State, ex rel. Scanlon, v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 379, 544 N.E.2d 680, 683.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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