State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426, 639 N.E.2d 83, 89. There is no dispute that the requested resumes are “records” for purposes of R.C. 149.43 and that they are subject to R.C. 149.43 because Lamalie and the committees acted for a public purpose in seeking and collecting the resumes. See, e.g., State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 258, 263, 602 N.E.2d 1159, 1163. Instead, the city and amici contend that the release of…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Whalen v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality LeagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- State ex rel. Steckman v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. WarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Hoover v. SumlinOhio Supreme Court · 1984
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- State ex rel. Doner v. ZodyOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- Hurt v. Liberty Twp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
- State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. SchroederOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- State ex rel. Bray v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Master v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1996
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.