State ex rel. Cleveland v. Astrab (Slip Opinion), 139 Ohio St. 3d 445

Official-capacity immunity for city and employees was affirmed by the Eighth District in DiGiorgio II but immunity in those counts was later reversed by this court, which ordered dismissal with prejudice for official-capacity claims and allowed amendment for individual-capacity claims.
Underlying tort: Virginia DiGiorgio was killed when struck by a stolen car pursued by police; city and police officers were named; immunity defenses were raised; trial court denied immunity motion.
On remand, trial court dismissed city and employees’ claims without prejudice; the Eighth District found the order not final and dismissed the appeal.
Mandamus action in the Eighth District sought to enforce the appellate mandate; the court denied writ, holding there were adequate ordinary-course remedies and the action sounded in declaratory judgment/injunction.
This Court reverses in part to require dismissal with prejudice for official-capacity immunity and affirms in part/permits amendment for individual-capacity immunity claims.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, writ granted in part; appellate mandate enforced regarding official-capacity immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether official-capacity immunity must be dismissed with prejudice	DiGiorgio II03: immunity law of the case requires prejudice.	City argues different remedy or retroactive effect of mandate.	Yes; dismiss with prejudice.
Whether mandamus is proper to enforce the appellate mandate	Mandamus is appropriate to enforce mandate.	Ordinary remedies suffice; mandamus inappropriate.	Writ granted in part; mandamus proper to enforce mandate.
Whether there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law	No adequate remedy; relitigation burdens avoided by mandamus.	There is an adequate appellate remedy (appeal with prejudice/without).	Not an adequate remedy; mandamus appropriate.
Whether remaining individual-capacity immunity claims can be addressed	Claims inadequately pled; may amend to state facts.	Trial court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.	Affirmed in part; trial court may allow amendment/refile.”

Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law-of-the-case and mandate obedience principles)
Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (early immunity determinations promote efficiency)
Burger v. City of Cleveland Hts., 1999-Ohio-... (1999) (early resolution of immunity findings promotes savings)
Ullmann v. Hayes, 103 Ohio St.3d 405 (2004) (adequacy of remedies in extraordinary writ context)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (clear-right/clear-duty standard for mandamus)