Opinion
No. 70-98
Decided November 25, 1970.
Mandamus — Remedy not available, when — Appeal procedure — Comprehensiveness of reviewing court's findings and decision, discretionary — R.C. 2505.21 — Requirements — Refusal of Court of Appeals to certify as conflict — Not reviewable by mandamus action.
IN MANDAMUS.
ON MOTION to dismiss.
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. The case is before the court on the second amended petition of relator and a demurrer filed thereto.
The proceedings which gave rise to the present action arose in the Court of Common Pleas as an action filed by relator to declare a zoning ordinance invalid. The city interposed the defense of res judicata, on the ground that the same issue was determined between the same parties in 1962. The trial court refused to apply the defense of res judicata, even though it recognized its existence in this case, and found the zoning ordinance invalid.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Common Pleas, finding that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable, and entered final judgment in favor of the city. An appeal, filed in this court as case No. 70-212, was dismissed on September 24, 1970.
Mr. Harold C. Foreman, in propria persona. Mr. Paul W. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Shelby V. Huchins and Mr. Thomas V. Martin, for respondents.
In this action, relator is seeking to require the Court of Appeals to state what the essential elements of res judicata are and where they are found in the record, to state separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to file a journal entry making final the denial of an application to certify the cause as a conflict case.
It is relator's position that the Court of Appeals did not properly set forth its reasons for reversal.
An examination of the court's journal entry shows that the Court of Appeals set forth the prior proceedings between the parties and determined that all the elements of res judicata were present. It is relator's contention that such entry should be more specific.
No such duty is imposed on respondents by R.C. 2505.21 which requires that the reviewing court shall state the errors found in the record and the reasons for its decision. Once the court has so specified it has fulfilled its duty under the statute; it is not required to point out where the record substantiates its decision. It is within the sound discretion of the court as to how comprehensive its findings or decision shall be in relation to the analysis of the facts or law upon which it is based.
In respect to relator's request that the court be required to file a journal entry denying the motion to certify as a conflict case, respondent states that this was done May 19, so this is now moot. The relator also challenges the refusal to certify this cause as a conflict case. Mandamus does not lie to review the refusal of a Court of Appeals to certify a cause as a conflict case. State, ex rel. Wolfe, v. Richards (1933), 127 Ohio St. 63.
Relator argues also that the Court of Appeals should have granted his motion for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is a question that cannot be raised by mandamus; relator has an adequate remedy at law by appeal. State, ex rel. Foreman, v. Common Pleas Court (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 175.
The demurrer to the petition, being now treated as a motion to dismiss under the new Rules of Civil Procedure, is sustained and final judgment is entered for respondents.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN, STERN and LEACH, JJ., concur.
SCHNEIDER, J., concurs in judgment only.