State ex rel. Grendell v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2022 Ohio 2833

Relator Timothy J. Grendell, a Geauga County probate/juvenile judge, sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Geauga County Commissioners and the county prosecutor to process his R.C. 305.14 application to appoint outside counsel (Stephen Funk) to sue the county auditor, Charles Walder, for unpaid court expenses totaling $19,858.36.
Grendell previously prevailed in State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder (“Grendell I”), in which this court ordered Walder to authorize payment of earlier disputed expenses.
The county did not process Grendell’s appointment application; Grendell argued Flaiz (county prosecutor) was conflicted or incapable of providing unbiased representation and therefore sought Funk.
After this action was filed, Grendell I was announced; Walder then authorized payment of the new expenses and the county filed a notice of mootness attaching checks and an affidavit.
Grendell moved for a peremptory writ and to strike the county’s notice. The Supreme Court denied the motion to strike as futile, found the case moot because the requested relief would be vain, and dismissed the action (denying the peremptory writ as moot).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to strike county’s notice of mootness	County’s filing procedure violated court rules; the notice should be struck	Notice presented the same evidence/arguments as the county’s brief and evidence, so striking is futile	Denied — striking would be futile because the same materials appear elsewhere
Mootness — does Walder’s payment render claim moot?	Suit sought a writ to compel appointment of counsel; payment of expenses does not directly address that procedural relief	Walder’s authorization granted the substantive outcome sought (payment); appointing counsel now would be a vain act	Case is moot; mandamus would compel a vain act and must be dismissed
Exception — capable of repetition yet evading review	Pattern of hostility and prior incidents make recurrence likely; the issue could evade review	Appointment-application disputes are not necessarily too short to litigate and Grendell I reduces likelihood of repetition	Exception does not apply: relator failed to show the dispute was too short to be litigated or that recurrence was likely in the same form
Scope of complaint / potential for broader relief	Complaint was drafted to capture future appointment-application disputes	Complaint focused on the specific payment dispute and appointment for Funk to litigate that payment	Court treated relief as specific to the payment dispute; Grendell could not broaden relief retroactively to avoid mootness

Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970) (courts decide actual controversies and should withhold advisory opinions)
State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder, 166 Ohio St.3d 533, 188 N.E.3d 152 (2022) (Grendell I) (clarified auditor’s duty and ordered payment of court-ordered expenditures)
State ex rel. Sawyer v. Cendroski, 118 Ohio St.3d 50, 885 N.E.2d 938 (2008) (dismissal as moot when relator’s objective was effectively achieved)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165, 902 N.E.2d 976 (2009) (analysis of mootness in contexts analogous to transient closure orders)
State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229, 729 N.E.2d 1182 (2000) (test for "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception)
Smith v. Leis, 111 Ohio St.3d 493, 857 N.E.2d 138 (2006) (requirement that recurrence be of the same action to satisfy the exception)
Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 874 N.E.2d 516 (2007) (courts may consider facts that arise after commencement in extraordinary-writ cases)
Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Donaldson, 63 Ohio St.3d 173, 586 N.E.2d 101 (1992) (discussing courtroom-closure orders and evasion of review)