State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 306
Syllabus
Mandamus DNA testing, discovery Crim.R. 16 Crim.R. 42 R.C. 2969.25(A) R.C. 2969.25(C) violation of due process rights violation of equal protection rights judicial discretion prohibitory injunction declaratory judgment. The relator has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and seeks an order from this court that requires the relator-judge to overturn his judgment with regard to a discovery matter and DNA testing. A review of the relator's original complaint for mandamus fails to reveal compliance with R.C. 2969.25. R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the relator to file an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal of a civil action he has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court, as well as information regarding the outcome of each civil action or appeal. Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory and the failure to comply subjects the complaint to dismissal. In addition, the relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. The failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) constitutes sufficient reason to deny a writ claim, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C) cannot be cured by amendment of the original complaint. This court possesses original jurisdiction over a complaint for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(1) of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2731.01 and 2731.02. The requisites for mandamus are well established: 1) the relator must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief 2) the relator must establish that respondent-judge possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and 3) the relator possesses no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with great caution and granted only when the righ
Judges: E.T. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 3,789×
- Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court· 1989-01-23· cited 3,366×
- Snowden v. HughesSupreme Court· 1944-03-13· cited 1,478×
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court· 1967-07-19· cited 1,186×
- State ex rel. Ney v. NiehausOhio Supreme Court· 1987-12-02· cited 256×
- State ex rel. Taylor v. GlasserOhio Supreme Court· 1977-06-15· cited 211×
- Fuqua v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 2003-11-05· cited 127×
- State ex rel. Grendell v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court· 1999-09-28· cited 109×
- State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-09-02· cited 96×
- State v. GeeslinOhio Supreme Court· 2007-10-11· cited 89×
- State ex rel. Pamer v. CollierOhio Supreme Court· 2006-04-12· cited 86×
- State v. Mole (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-07-28· cited 77×
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court· 1995-03-30· cited 58×
- State ex rel. Doersam v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court· 1989-08-23· cited 53×
- State ex rel. Sawyer v. O'ConnorOhio Supreme Court· 1978-06-21· cited 42×
- State ex rel. Coyne v. TodiaOhio Supreme Court· 1989-09-06· cited 39×
- State ex rel. Governor v. TaftOhio Supreme Court· 1994-10-21· cited 35×
- State ex rel. Evans v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court· 2006-10-20· cited 30×
- State ex rel. Obojski v. PerciakOhio Supreme Court· 2007-06-06· cited 26×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.