Ohio Supreme Court, 1996

Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 29, 1996 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

75 Ohio St. 3d 508; 664 N.E.2d 521

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Thomas v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 2024)
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 2023)
Perry v. Sweeney (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Gaslite Leasing, L.L.C. v. Haupt (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Minter (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Carley v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Schmidt v. Newtown (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
Planey v. Hepfner, 07 Ma 172 (2-13-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
McQueen v. Evans, 08-Ma-128 (8-7-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Bethel v. Chillicothe, Unpublished Decision (10-6-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
West v. State, Unpublished Decision (7-6-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State Ex. Rel. Christopher v. Gaia (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Rucker v. Fankhauser (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio 2024)
Patterson v. D'Apolito (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Fipps v. Day (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Chine v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State ex rel. Mora v. Wilkinson (Ohio 2005)
Rust v. Lucas County Board of Elections (Ohio 2005)
Blankenship v. Blackwell (Ohio 2004)
Paulette v. Tablack, Unpublished Decision (3-17-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept. (Ohio 1996)

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.

Litigaide’s action is subject to dismissal for the following reasons. Litigaide failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because its complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of Litigaide. Respondent raised this objection in its answer and brief on the merits, but Litigaide failed to seek leave to amend its complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04. Therefore, Litigaide’s mandamus action must be dismissed. See State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532-533, 653 N.E.2d 349, 352-353; Civ.R. 17(A); Maloney v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 19 O.O.2d 51, 52, 181 N.E.2d 268, 269.

In addition, to the extent that Litigaide requests injunctive relief, its claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1. 3. 640 N.E.2d 1136. 1137-1138.

*509Accordingly, the cause is dismissed, and Litigaide’s request for attorney fees is denied.

Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

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