State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko
135 Ohio St. 3d 171
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Relator Scott Dunlap filed an original mandamus action against Violet Township officials seeking access to records and public-meetings compliance, and enforcement of recordkeeping duties.
- Relator’s requests focused on May 18 and October 17, 2011 public-records requests, including invoices, calendars, agendas, and meeting notes/minutes.
- Dunlap previously pursued mandamus actions in the Fairfield County Court of Appeals seeking similar relief, which were resolved with records provided or information deemed privileged.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio invoked the jurisdictional-priority rule, noting concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the need to avoid duplicative, piecemeal mandamus actions.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the jurisdictional-priority rule and dismissed the cause; pending motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has mandamus jurisdiction under the jurisdictional-priority rule | Dunlap seeks relief in this court | Concurrent actions in appeals preclude original jurisdiction | Lacks jurisdiction; case dismissed. |
| Whether the claimed records and meetings scope limits affect jurisdiction | Relator limits to May 18 and Oct 17 requests | Scope aligns with prior actions | Not reached; jurisdictional bar controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 734 N.E.2d 811 (2000) (jurisdictional-priority rule and mandamus scope in concurrent actions)
- State ex rel. Racing Guild of Ohio v. Morgan, 17 Ohio St.3d 54, 476 N.E.2d 1060 (1985) (first-in-time principle between concurrent tribunals)
- State ex rel. Judson v. Spahr, 33 Ohio St.3d 111, 515 N.E.2d 911 (1987) (same-party/same-action requirement for jurisdictional priority)
- State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453, 2011-Ohio-4082, 953 N.E.2d 809 (2011) (application of jurisdictional priority when actions present part of the same whole issue)
- State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken, 72 Ohio St.3d 115, 647 N.E.2d 807 (1995) (scope of mandamus and related proceedings in concurrent actions)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686 (2008) (court will not address claims not argued in merit brief)