Ohio Supreme Court, 2009

State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 7, 2009 · Moyek, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp

2009 Ohio 5259; 123 Ohio St. 3d 297; 915 N.E.2d 1223

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Howard v. Saffold (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Snead v. Ferenc (Ohio 2014)
State ex rel. Davis v. Ewers (Ohio 2011)
State ex rel. Waiters v. Szabo (Ohio 2011)
State Ex Rel. American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners (Ohio 2011)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh (Ohio 2011)
State Ex Rel. Murray v. Scioto County Board of Elections (Ohio 2010)
State Ex Rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2010)

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel a prison warden to provide properly fitting shoes to *298 appellant, Lambert Dehler. Mandamus will not compel the performance of an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6.

Lambert Dehler, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley Dawn Rutherford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly restricted its holding to Dehler himself because Dehler did not bring his mandamus case as a class action. See State ex rel. Ogan v. Teater (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 235, 247, 8 O.O.3d 217, 375 N.E.2d 1233 (“Where, as in the instant cause, the party bringing suit does not attempt to bring his cause of action within the provisions of Civ.R. 23, it is clear that the court may properly limit its holding to that of the party alone”). With that restriction, Dehler was unable to establish that his mandamus claim was not moot, i.e., he failed to prove a reasonable expectation that he would be subject to the same action again. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165, 2009-Ohio-590, 902 N.E.2d 976, ¶ 11.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyek, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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