Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Scott Dunlap’s mandamus action against Violet Township officials and related respondents. The court held that the jurisdictional-priority rule barred the action because previously filed, substantially overlapping mandamus proceedings were pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
Holdings
- The jurisdictional-priority rule barred the Supreme Court of Ohio from exercising original mandamus jurisdiction because the previously filed court-of-appeals actions and the Supreme Court action involved essentially the same parties and part of the same whole issue.
- The court would not address propositions and claims for which Dunlap presented no argument in his merit brief.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio could exercise original mandamus jurisdiction when Dunlap had already filed a substantially duplicative mandamus action in the Fifth District Court of Appeals concerning the same public-records requests and essentially the same parties.
- Whether the court should address propositions and claims for which Dunlap presented no argument in his merit brief.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (9)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St. 3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 26(followed)
- State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner, 114 Ohio St. 3d 386, 2007-Ohio-3780, 872 N.E.2d 912, ¶ 26, fn. 4(followed)
- State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 90 Ohio St. 3d 55, 59, 734 N.E.2d 811 (2000)(followed)
- State ex rel. Racing Guild of Ohio v. Morgan, 17 Ohio St. 3d 54, 56, 476 N.E.2d 1060 (1985)(followed)
- State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar, 50 Ohio St. 2d 279, 364 N.E.2d 33 (1977)(followed)
- State ex rel. Judson v. Spahr, 33 Ohio St. 3d 111, 113, 515 N.E.2d 911 (1987)(followed)
- State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St. 3d 453, 2011-Ohio-4082, 953 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 29(followed)
- State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken, 72 Ohio St. 3d 115, 117, 647 N.E.2d 807 (1995)(followed)
- State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2011-Ohio-5028, 959 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 11(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…