State ex rel. Kirk v. Burcham
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants assert in their propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of mandamus. They initially contend that the court of appeals erred in holding that the case was moot.
But insofar as appellants sought a writ of mandamus to compel Burcham to journalize the divorce decree, the case was rendered moot by Burcham’s January 10, 1997 journalization of the decree. A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723, 724.
Despite appellants’…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Walker v. Lancaster City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Wright v. GheeOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Bruni v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 1997
3Cited by14 opinions
- State Ex Rel. American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State ex rel. Leslie v. Ohio Housing Finance AgencyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.