Schwab v. Lattimore
Ohio Court of Appeals
1DissentPainter, J.
{¶ 19} The majority today determines that there is nothing for us to review. The majority reasons that the issue of whether Schwab was entitled to possession of the apartment is moot because Lattimore no longer lives in the apartment.
{¶ 20} But by declaring the issue in this case moot, we are denying relief to any tenant, not just Lattimore, who has a legitimate counterclaim against a landlord that would prevent an eviction. This is the type of issue that falls under the exception to the mootness doctrine because it is capable of repetition yet evades review.
I. The Case Is Not Moot
{¶ 21} The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State ex rel. Calvary v. City of Upper ArlingtonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- In re Appeal of Suspension of Huffer from Circleville High SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Sandefur Management Co. v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 1985