State ex rel. Conomy v. Rohrer

2025-Ohio-5296 · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 2, 2025 · No. 2024-1786

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of Christopher P. Conomy’s petition seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo against a municipal-court judge, city prosecutor, city attorney, and City of Delaware. The court held that mandamus could not control judicial or prosecutorial discretion, procedendo was unavailable because the judge lacked jurisdiction to modify the dismissed criminal case, and a defamation action provided an adequate remedy for allegedly false prosecutorial statements.

Holdings

  1. Conomy was not entitled to mandamus relief because he sought to control the exercise of Judge Rohrer's judicial discretion, and the record-sealing and expungement provisions supplied an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  2. Conomy was not entitled to a writ of procedendo because Judge Rohrer lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to amend the dismissal entry after the criminal case had been dismissed.
  3. Conomy had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through a defamation action, and the city could not be compelled by mandamus to withdraw filings or statements it lacked legal authority to withdraw.
  4. Conomy could not recover damages under R.C. 2731.11 because only a successful mandamus relator may recover damages under that statute.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Conomy was entitled to mandamus relief requiring Judge Rohrer to correct the record or amend the dismissal in the aggravated-menacing case.
  2. Whether Conomy was entitled to procedendo compelling Judge Rohrer to rule on a postdismissal motion to amend the dismissal entry and impose sanctions.
  3. Whether Conomy had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through a defamation action for allegedly false statements made by the prosecutor and whether mandamus could compel the city to withdraw those statements.
  4. Whether Conomy could recover damages under R.C. 2731.11 after his mandamus claims were dismissed.
  5. Whether Conomy's four post-briefing motions should be granted.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (22)

  • State ex rel. Peterson v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2024-Ohio-646, ¶ 10(followed)
  • Morgan v. N. Coast Cable Co., 63 Ohio St.3d 156, 159 (1992)(followed)
  • Dzina v. Celebrezze, 2006-Ohio-1195, ¶ 16(followed)
  • State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 1995-Ohio-215, ¶ 17(followed)
  • State ex rel. Harris v. Schwendeman, 2025-Ohio-4769, ¶ 10(followed)
  • State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV v. Pontious, 1996-Ohio-459, ¶ 21(followed)
  • State ex rel. Martre v. Reed, 2020-Ohio-4777, ¶ 8(followed)
  • State ex rel. Sawicki v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2010-Ohio-3299, ¶ 11(followed)
  • State ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 2007-Ohio-2205, ¶ 33(followed)
  • State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 2012-Ohio-2916, ¶ 1(followed)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…