State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Love’s contentions lack merit.
As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to the requested records. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of unspecified laws. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993), *15967 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232. In fact, there is no requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings. See State v. Spirko (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 421, 429, 713 N.E.2d 60, 65, discretionary appeal not allowed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Kuczak v. SaffoldOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- State ex rel. Flagner v. ArkoOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. SpirkoOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
3Cited by37 opinions
- State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- Jeronique Cunningham v. Stuart HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
- State v. Broom (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. KeithOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. ConwayOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.