State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Department of Public Safety
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Coburn (Ohio 2009)
- L.G. Harris Family Ltd. Partnership I v. 905 S. Main St. Englewood, L.L.C. (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Henry (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- State v. Smith, 2007-T-0076 (3-28-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- Russin v. Shepherd, 2006-G-2708 (6-22-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Huntington Natl. Bk v. Pacific Fin. Servs., Unpublished Decision (8-31-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
- Hyosung (America) v. Star Bank, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Oakmont Motors v. Ohio Motor Veh. Dealers, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Strausbaugh v. Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- State ex rel. East Cleveland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 500 v. Jenkins (Ohio 2002)
- State ex rel. Village of Chagrin Falls v. Geauga County Board of Commissioners (Ohio 2002)
- State ex rel. Sevayega v. Reis (Ohio 2000)
- Pnc Bank v. Schram, Unpublished Decision (4-30-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Brown v. Leonard (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (Ohio 1998)
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
Porter asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons that follow, Porter’s claims lack merit.
First, as the court of appeals correctly held, appellees did not have a clear legal duty under R.C. 149.43 to transmit copies of the requested records to Porter in prison by mail or other means. State ex rel. Iacovone v. Kaminski (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 690 N.E.2d 4, 5; State ex rel. Mayes v. Holman (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 N.E.2d 1132, 1134.
Second, Porter waived his appellate claims concerning appellees’ alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and his constitutional right of access because he failed to raise these claims in the court of appeals. “ ‘Ordinarily, reviewing courts do not consider questions not presented to the court whose judgment is sought to be reversed.’ ” See State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 679 N.E.2d 706, 709, quoting Goldberg v. Indus. Comm. (1936), 131 Ohio St. 399, 404, 6 O.O. 108, 110, 3 N.E.2d 364, 367.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.