- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
St. Toledo Blade Co., v. Northwood
58 Ohio St. 3d 213 (Ohio 1991)4 Citing cases
State ex Rel. Pennington v. Gundler
75 Ohio St. 3d 171 (Ohio 1996) Cited 87 timesIn State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler, 75 Ohio St.3d 171 (1996), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a court may award attorneys' fees to a party who has filed a mandamus action seeking release of public records even if the records are voluntarily produced, so long as the records request is "proper" — that is, as long as the underlying request was actually meritorious.
Pennington conceded in the court of appeals that the clerk's production of the records rendered her claim for a writ a mandamus moot. The court of appeals denied Pennington's request for attorney fees based upon State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Northwood (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 213, 569 N.E.2d 904. The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Society
64 Ohio St. 3d 509 (Ohio 1992) Cited 39 timesIn State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Soc. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 509, 597 N.E.2d 120, we held that there is no requirement under R.C. 149.43(B) that a custodian of public records mail copies of them to the requester.
Today a majority of this court takes yet another whack at the public records law. See, e.g., State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Northwood (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 213, 569 N.E.2d 904. Because I disagree with the holding of the majority, I must respectfully dissent.
Parker v. Lucas Cty
2008 Ohio 3274 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) Cited 6 times{¶ 36} According to State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 N.E.2d 1049, syllabus, "A court may award attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 149.43 where (1) a person makes a proper request for public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43, (2) the custodian of the public records fails to comply with the person's request, (3) the requesting person files a mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43 to obtain copies of the records, and (4) the person receives the requested public records only after the mandamus action is filed, thereby rendering the claim for a writ of mandamus moot. ( State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Northwood, 58 Ohio St.3d 213, 569 N.E.2d 904, overruled.)"
State v. Leone
Case No. CA97-05-102 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 9, 1998)In addition, a court has discretion to award attorney fees where a relator receives requested public records after a mandamus action is filed but before a final judgment is rendered. State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, paragraph one of the syllabus (State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Northwood [1991], 58 Ohio St.3d 213, overruled). The Supreme Court reasoned that such a rule was necessary because of the "proclivity of some custodians of public records to force the filing of a mandamus action by a citizen to gain access to records that are obviously public."