Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1994No. 93-1187PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

The court of appeals did not err in dismissing Hill’s mandamus and prohibition complaint. The trial court has authority to resolve disputes and correct factual errors in a trial record, including disputes over when a verdict form was filed or the effect of a document’s being filed late. See State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 81, 564 N.E.2d 54, 66; Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 222, 18 OBR 281, 283, 480 N.E.2d 802, 805. App.R. 9(E) specifically provides:

“(E) Correction or Modification of the Record.
“ * * * If anything material * * * is omitted from the record by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. TylerOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. D'AmbrosioOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. MartinOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. State v. BrewerOhio Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. TaylorOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Howard v. FerreriOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. TaylorOhio Supreme Court · 1997

8 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