Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1998No. 97-1992PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

Thomas asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying his motions for default judgment and to amend his pleading. For the following reasons, we hold that Thomas’s propositions are meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

First, as the court of appeals properly determined, Thomas was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel appellees to remove the detainer from his record. Because his parole was ultimately revoked, removing the detainer would be futile. See State ex rel. Strothers…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Shimola v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Strothers v. TurnerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Myles v. WyattOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Rahn v. City of WhitehallOhio Court of Appeals · 1989

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. RoseberryOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  2. Wellington v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State ex rel. Bona v. Village of OrangeOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Cotton v. GheeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Whiteside v. FaisOhio Supreme Court · 2001

13 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