Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Alford v. Winters

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1997No. 97-992PublishedCited by 115 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Alford failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) in commencing his mandamus action.1 Alford does not contend that R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to mandamus actions. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 82, 85, 661 N.E.2d 728, 731, quoting R.C. 2731.09 (“Issues of fact raised by the pleadings in mandamus actions ‘must be tried, and further proceedings had, in the same manner as in civil actions.’ ”); cf. Martin v. United States (C.A.7, 1996), 96 F.3d…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Martin v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by115 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. White v. BechtelOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Alford v. WintersOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. White v. GoldsberryOhio Supreme Court · 1999

110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API