Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Bardwell v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 26, 2010No. 2009-2140PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCupp, J.
{¶ 1} The issue before the court is whether the court of appeals abused its discretion when it imposed Civ.R. 11 sanctions against appellant, Brian Bardwell, for filing a pro se public-records mandamus complaint in bad faith. For the following reasons, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Facts
{¶ 2} On March 26, 2009, Bardwell personally requested three types of public records from the Cuyahoga County prosecutor: (1) the prosecutor’s records-retention schedule, (2) communications between the Cuyahoga County Board of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Knapp v. Edwards LaboratoriesOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Zoppo v. Homestead InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- State ex rel. Dann v. TaftOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Morgan v. StricklandOhio Supreme Court · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- State v. Bates (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
- State v. Harper, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County2018
- Semco, Inc. v. Sims Bros., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Fast Property Solutions, Inc. v. JurczenkoOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Andes v. Ohio Atty. Gen.'s OfficeOhio Court of Claims · 2017
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.