Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ghiz
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided December 13, 2017No. NOS. C–170268; C–170269Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZayas, J.
{¶ 22} I concur with the majority's holding regarding the petition for a writ of mandamus. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the petition for a writ of prohibition is moot. While the cause is technically moot, there is a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review," and it is within our authority to raise the applicability of this exception sua sponte. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bronson , 191 Ohio App.3d 160 , 2010-Ohio-5315 , 945 N.E.2d 551 , ¶ 8 (12th Dist.). To meet this…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of RiversideSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- State ex rel. Calvary v. City of Upper ArlingtonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. LoudenOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. GeerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.