State ex rel. Williams v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The central question in each of the cases before us is whether certain records demanded by appellants should have been made available to them. Upon a thorough review of the records, we find the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in ordering some records released, some released as redacted, and some records not released. We affirm the court of appeals in each case in all respects.
As a threshold matter, it is clear that an action in mandamus is available to each appellant. In State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 55, 560 N.E.2d 1313, syllabus, we held that “[a] criminal…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. University of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State ex rel. Zuern v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Clark v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- State ex rel. Steckman v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Schneider v. KreinerOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Apanovitch v. HoukCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- State ex rel. Miami Student v. Miami UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.