Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State ex rel. Clark v. Lile
Citations: 80 Ohio St. 3d 220; 685 N.E.2d 535Docket: No. 97-884
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; November 4, 1997; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Clark's appeal of the court of appeals' denial of his writ of mandamus is based on his claim that Judge Lile was the appropriate respondent since the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction allegedly followed a December 1995 order that contradicted a July 1989 clarification. However, Clark did not include these specific facts in his original complaint, which only stated that the Department was not adhering to the 1989 order. The court of appeals correctly concluded that Judge Lile had no obligation to grant the relief sought, as established by precedents requiring inmates to allege specific facts to avoid dismissal of mandamus complaints. Clark's mention of the December 1995 order in a postjudgment application was deemed irrelevant because it was a nullity following his filing in the court of appeals. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of the writ, rendering moot both Judge Lile's motion to dismiss Clark's brief and Clark's motion to strike that motion. The judgment was affirmed with concurrence from Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Douglas, Resnick, Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, and Lundberg Stratton.