State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. Chatfield v. Flautt (Ohio 2012)
- State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner (Ohio 2011)
- State ex rel. Bozsik v. Medina Cty. Sheriff Office (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
- Townsend v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019)
- Cantie v. Hillside Plaza (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- State v. Carter (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
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
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus sought by appellant, inmate Danny Barb, to compel appellee, the Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner, to provide lists of prospective jurors and jurors who served in three criminal cases in which Barb was the defendant. Barb is not entitled to the requested records because he did not comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires a finding by Barb’s sentencing judge or the judge’s successor that the requested information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim. State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 16. Although we acknowledge that a person’s status as a designee and the person’s purpose in obtaining records are not normally issues in public-records cases, see State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 427, 639 N.E.2d 83, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides an exception in which incarcerated persons and the purpose for which they seek records relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution are dispositive. Steckman is further inapposite here because Barb’s purported designee did not institute the mandamus action.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.