Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 10, 1999 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

87 Ohio St. 3d 158; 718 N.E.2d 426

Cases that cite this one

47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Broom (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State v. Thompson (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Sowell (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Adams (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Owensby (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State v. Hazel (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State v. King (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State v. Crawford (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Jeronique Cunningham v. Stuart Hudson (6th Cir. 2014)
State v. Hazel (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. McGrath (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State v. Group (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State v. Keith (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Harris, 88914 (8-2-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Ahmed, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Triplett v. Ross (Ohio 2006)
State ex rel. Consumer News Services, Inc. v. Worthington City Board of Education (Ohio 2002)
State v. Jones (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Taylor (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Maxwell (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Obermiller (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Conway (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Phelan (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Harrison (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State v. Curtis (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

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.

Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Love’s contentions lack merit.

As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to the requested records. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of unspecified laws. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993), *15967 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232. In fact, there is no requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings. See State v. Spirko (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 421, 429, 713 N.E.2d 60, 65, discretionary appeal not allowed (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1430, 699 N.E.2d 946; State v. White (June 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 394938, unreported, 1999 WL 394938.

In addition, Love is not entitled to the requested records under the Crim.R. 16 criminal discovery provisions because his criminal trial concluded long before his requests. State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 699 N.E.2d 62, 63; Crim.R. 16(D).

Finally, Love disclaimed any right to relief under R.C. 149.43. Flagner, 83 Ohio St.3d at 177, 699 N.E.2d at 63.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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