Ohio Supreme Court, 1996

State ex rel. Jones v. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 26, 1996 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

75 Ohio St. 3d 642; 665 N.E.2d 673; 1996 Ohio LEXIS 403

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Call v. Zimmers (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Call v. Zimmers (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth District Court of Appeals (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Petro (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Petro (Ohio 1997)
State Ex Rel. Ahmed v. Lipscomb, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Davis v. Jenkins, Unpublished Decision (3-8-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)

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.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Jones possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to obtain the requested transcripts, i.e., his motion in the court of appeals in his pending appeal. See, generally, State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 592, 639 N.E.2d 1189, 1194-1195.

Jones’s contention-that his mandamus action took precedence over his subsequently filed motion for transcripts is meritless. See State ex rel. Newton v. Court of Claims (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 553, 557, 653 N.E.2d 366, 370, quoting Oregon v. Dansack (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 623 N.E.2d 20, 22 (“[I]n mandamus actions, ‘a court is not limited to considering facts and circumstances at the time a proceeding is instituted, but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines to issue a peremptory writ.’ ”). In addition, the mere fact that the court of appeals subsequently overruled Jones’s motion for transcripts did not render that remedy inadequate. See State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 205, 209, 648 N.E.2d 823, 827.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

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.