State ex rel. Wells v. Corrigan
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 699
Syllabus
Mandamus, R.C. 2969.25(A), R.C. 2969.25(C), Civ.R. 10(A), Civ.R. 58(B). - The relator's complaint for a writ of mandamus, to compel the respondent-judgment to comply with Civ.R. 58(B), is defective for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and R.C. 2969.25(C). Pursuant to R.C 2969.25(A), the relator must 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 Wells's complaint to dismissal or denial. R.C. 2969.25(C) requires that a relator, who is 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. The relator has also failed to comply with Civ.R. 10(A), which states that the caption of a complaint must include the names and addresses of all the parties. Despite the procedural defects contained within the complaint for mandamus, it is clear that the respondent judge has failed to comply with the notice requirement of Civ.R. 58(B).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- dismissal of case after a six and one-half year delay deemed “within the proper discretion of the trial judge”
- \it is plainly not an abuse of discretion simply because a reviewing court would have reached a different result\
- dismissal for lack of prosecution where plaintiffs took no affirmative steps for more than six years after filing their complaint, including \two years of [complete] inaction\
- “There is no error of law amounting to an abuse of discretion simply because a reviewing court-might have reached a different result; the standard of review is not substituted judgment.”
- dismissal for failure to prosecute committed to sound discretion of court
- affirming dismissal after six and one-half years had elapsed
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.