State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman

Ohio

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citations: 6 Ohio St. 3d 5, 6 Ohio B. 4, 450 N.E.2d 1163, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 762

Decision Date: 7/13/1983

Docket Number: No. 82-1221

Jurisdiction: OH

Bluebook Citation: State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St. 3d 5, 6 Ohio B. 4, 450 N.E.2d 1163, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 762 (Ohio 1983)

More Cases: Ohio decisions from 1983

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 132 decisions

132

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Ohio Ct. App.128

Ohio4

Most recently cited by10

2023State v. Patterson Ohio Ct. App.
2023State ex rel. Richardson v. Gowdy Ohio
2017Bey v. State Ohio Ct. App.
2015State ex rel. Spates v. Donnelly Ohio Ct. App.
2015State ex rel. Adkins v. Dinovo Ohio Ct. App.
2015State ex rel. Davis v. Astrab Ohio Ct. App.
2014Benson v. Callahan Ohio Ct. App.
2014State ex rel. Green v. Saffold Ohio Ct. App.
2014State ex rel. Varholick v. Donnelly Ohio Ct. App.
2014State ex rel. Smith v. Calabrese Ohio Ct. App.

Cites 4 cases

State ex rel. Bowman v. Asmann
State ex rel. Warner & Swasey Co. v. Industrial Commission
State ex rel. Breaux v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County
State ex rel. Hawke v. Weygandt

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The State, ex rel. Gantt, Appellant, v. Coleman, Judge, Appellee.

Judges

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Attorneys

Mr. Shelley Gantt, pro se.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Gary W. Johnson, for appellee.

majority Per Curiam.

It is well-established that the extraordinary writ of mandamus “* * * will not issue to compel a public official to perform a legal duty which has been completed.” State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 164 [4 O.O.3d 352], citing State, ex rel. Bowman, v. Asmann (1925), 113 Ohio St. 394. Stated otherwise, the writ will not lie in order to secure a determination of issues which have become moot pending consideration by the court of appeals. State, ex rel. Hawke, v. Weygandt (1947), 148 Ohio St. 453, 456 [36 O.O. 88]. See, also, State, ex rel. Warner & Swasey Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 152 [4 O.O.3d 346].

Since a ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief was issued during the pendency of appellant’s original action, the court of appeals correctly determined that the issues raised in the complaint for a writ of mandamus had become moot. State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas, supra.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.