State ex Rel. Wilson v. Sunderland

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Wilson

    2017 Ohio 8498 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    He has used various procedural mechanisms including a request for reconsideration, numerous petitions for post-conviction relief, and petitions for extraordinary writs of mandamus, procedendo and habeas corpus. See State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17515, 1999 WL 173551 (Mar. 31, 1999); State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland, 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 2000-Ohio-479, 721 N.E.2d 1055 (2000); State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21738, 2007-Ohio-4885, appeal not accepted for review, 117 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2008-Ohio-565, 881 N.E.2d 274 (Table); State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23247, 2009-Ohio-7035; State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24352, 2011-Ohio-599. None of these actions have been successful.

  2. State v. Fuerst

    2007 Ohio 5938 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)

    The request for mandamus is moot. State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 2000-Ohio-218, 732 N.E.2d 983; State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland, 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 2000-Ohio-479, 721 N.E.2d 1055. {¶ 7} Finally, Halder possesses an adequate remedy at law, which prevents this court from issuing a writ of mandamus.

  3. State ex rel. Williams-Byers v. City of S. Euclid

    2020 Ohio 5534 (Ohio 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In State ex rel. Williams-Byers v. South Euclid, 163 Ohio St.3d 478 2020-Ohio-5534, 171 N.E.3d 264, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the concept of inherent authority noting "that in some situations, a court may exercise inherent judicial power to compel essential funding when necessary to preserve judicial independence." Id. at ¶ 14.

    In reviewing a claim for mandamus relief, we must "consider the facts and conditions at the time we determine whether to grant the writ." State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 64, 734 N.E.2d 811 (2000), citing State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland, 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055 (2000). We therefore deny the request for a writ of mandamus with respect to the municipal court's demand for additional funding.

  4. STATE v. BECK

    2007 Ohio 4562 (Ohio 2007)   Cited 10 times

    Although the common pleas court's February 26, 2007 order was issued after Blandin filed this action, we properly consider it in determining hip entitlement to the requested writ. State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055 (in mandamus actions, courts are not limited to the facts at the time the action is commenced and should consider the pertinent facts at the time it decides the claim). {¶ 20} Based on the foregoing, Blandin has established none of the requirements for the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.

  5. State ex rel. Howard v. Skow

    2004 Ohio 3652 (Ohio 2004)   Cited 20 times

    {¶ 9} Finally, in determining actions involving extraordinary writs, a court is not limited to considering the facts and circumstances at the time that the writ was requested but can consider the facts and conditions at the time that entitlement to the writ is considered. See, e.g., State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055. The court of appeals correctly considered Judge Skow's performance of the requested acts, which rendered Howard's procedendo claim moot.

  6. State ex rel. Portage Lakes Education Ass'n v. State Employment Relations Board

    95 Ohio St. 3d 533 (Ohio 2002)   Cited 50 times
    In Portage Lakes, the court warned that since mandamus proceedings are premised upon a relator establishing an abuse of discretion by SERB in making its probable cause determination, courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the administrative agency.

    We have held that in mandamus actions, a court is not limited to considering facts and circumstances at the time a proceeding is instituted but should consider the facts and conditions at the time it determines whether to issue a peremptory writ. State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055. In the mandamus cases cited by relators, however, later events either mooted the case or names were subsequently withdrawn from a petition to transfer territory.

  7. State v. Hamilton Cty. Board of Commissioners

    90 Ohio St. 3d 55 (Ohio 2000)   Cited 27 times
    In State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 734 N.E.2d 811, relied upon by relators, an application for the appointment of legal counsel was filed with the common pleas court during the pendency of the budget dispute and reimbursement for legal expenses was found warranted under R.C. 305.14.

    And in mandamus actions, we are not restricted to considering facts and circumstances at the time a proceeding is instituted, but we consider the facts and conditions at the time we determine whether to grant the writ. See State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055, 1057. The board had sufficient time to review Judge Wilke's funding requests while this case was pending.

  8. State ex Rel. Smith v. Fuerst

    89 Ohio St. 3d 456 (Ohio 2000)   Cited 22 times
    Noting that a motion for relief from judgment is an adequate remedy at law that precludes relief in mandamus

    Therefore, Fuerst complied with his duty to serve the entry on Smith, and mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 548-549, 721 N.E.2d 1055, 1056; see, also, Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851, paragraph two of the syllabus. In addition, Smith had adequate remedies at law by a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment or appeal to raise his claim that he was entitled to additional time to perfect his appeal from the October 17, 1996 judgment.

  9. Waters v. Noble Cty. Com. Pleas Court

    2010 Ohio 618 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

    However, in determining whether the writ should be granted we are permitted to consider the circumstances existing at the time the petition is considered. State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549. {¶ 9} A review of the federal court docket from John Doe indicates that that case was concluded in August 2008.

  10. State ex Rel. Howard v. Belmont Cty.

    2009 Ohio 6811 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    In reviewing whether the writ is warranted, we are not limited to considering the circumstances at the time the petition was filed. State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549. Rather, we can consider the circumstances existing at the time the petition is considered.