Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Nix v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1998No. 98-68PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Per curiam

Relators assert that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling respondents to provide access to the requested records under R.C. 149.43.

Initially, to the extent that relators’ requests encompass the PCIR Unit investigative file, their claim is barred by res judicata. State ex rel. Russo v. Deters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 152,154, 684 N.E.2d 1237,1238-1239. We previously held that this investigative file is exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43. Master, 76 Ohio St.3d 340, 667 N.E.2d 974.2

In addition, relators’ claims are moot insofar as they request access to records that they either…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Steckman v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. United States v. Donald E. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
  4. United States v. William H. White, Sr., United States of America v. Lester H. Finotti, Jr.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
  5. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas County Port AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State ex rel. Leslie v. Ohio Housing Finance AgencyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  4. State ex rel. Calvary v. City of Upper ArlingtonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010

52 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