History
  • No items yet
midpage
2013 Ohio 4379
Ohio Ct. App.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • Ford filed two postconviction-relief petitions March 20, 2013 in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-464709 and CR-469583; Judge McClelland denied March 26, 2013.
  • Judgments denying relief were signed but did not include Civ.R. 58(B) directive to serve notice on all parties.
  • Ford filed a May 7, 2013 motion for proper notice; motion remains pending.
  • This is a civil-postconviction proceeding; Civ.R. 58(B) applies to judgments in such matters.
  • Court held Ford has a right to notice under Civ.R. 58(B) and that deficient service affects appellate timing.
  • The court ultimately dismissed the complaint for mandamus, directing service of notice on the judgment.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether mandamus is proper to compel Civ.R.58(B) notice in postconviction rulings Ford argues McClelland must endorse a Civ.R.58(B) notice direction McClelland argues no mandamus; remedy available via pending notice motion No mandamus; adequate remedy exists; dismiss with notice directive to clerk

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Nichols, 11 Ohio St.3d 40 (1984) (Civ.R.58 applies to postconviction judgments)
  • State v. Tucker, 2011-Ohio-4092 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95556) (Civ.R.58 notice flow and appeal timing rules)
  • Whitehall ex rel. Fennessy v. Bambi Motel, 131 Ohio App.3d 734 (10th Dist.1998) (Civ.R.58 notice requirements apply to timely appeals)
  • Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 37 Ohio St.3d 80 (1988) (Due process protects appellate rights; Civ.R.58 preserves rights)
  • State ex rel. Eshleman v. Fornshell, 125 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-1175) ( mandamus standards for civil-relief actions)
  • State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012-Ohio-69) (clear and convincing standard for mandamus)
  • State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted, 131 Ohio St.3d 125 (2012-Ohio-109) (adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law)
  • State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481 (2010-Ohio-4388) (adequate remedy exists; Civ.R.58(B) oversight can be addressed in regular channels)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Ford v. McClelland
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 1, 2013
Citations: 2013 Ohio 4379; 100014
Docket Number: 100014
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In
    State ex rel. Ford v. McClelland, 2013 Ohio 4379