Legal Opinion

Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1996No. 95-2002PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Per curiam

Litigaide’s action is subject to dismissal for the following reasons. Litigaide failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because its complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of Litigaide. Respondent raised this objection in its answer and brief on the merits, but Litigaide failed to seek leave to amend its complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04. Therefore, Litigaide’s mandamus action must be dismissed. See State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532-533, 653 N.E.2d 349, 352-353; Civ.R. 17(A); Maloney v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 237,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Huntington Insurance Agency, Inc. v. DuryeeOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Governor v. TaftOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Blankenship v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Rust v. Lucas County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State ex rel. Mora v. WilkinsonOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Fipps v. DayOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. State ex rel. Thomas v. Wood Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2024

15 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