State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims
143 Ohio St. 3d 493
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Pallone sued the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in the Court of Claims; a magistrate recommended judgment for the department after a hearing.
- Pallone filed objections to the magistrate’s factual findings but did not supply the transcript or affidavit required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).
- The Court of Claims overruled the objections and entered judgment for the department; Pallone appealed to the Tenth District.
- Pallone later filed a proposed App.R. 9(C) statement of the evidence (used when a transcript is unavailable); the Court of Claims rejected it and accepted the magistrate’s findings as the statement of the evidence.
- Pallone failed to file his appellate merit brief by the deadline; the Tenth District dismissed the appeal. He then sought mandamus to compel the Court of Claims to approve and transmit his App.R. 9(C) statement.
- The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action as barred because Pallone failed to pursue the adequate remedy of completing his appeal; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims must approve and transmit Pallone’s App.R. 9(C) statement after he failed to file a transcript/affidavit with his objections to the magistrate | Pallone argued his App.R. 9(C) statement was timely and the rule amendment should not apply retroactively; he sought approval and transmission | Court of Claims and appellee argued that because Pallone failed to comply with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), he waived appellate review of factual findings and is not entitled to cure that by an App.R. 9(C) statement | Court held mandamus would be vain; failure to supply transcript/affidavit waived appeal of factual findings and App.R. 9(C) cannot overcome that waiver |
| Whether the 2013 amendment to App.R. 9(C) applying limits to use of statements should be applied retroactively to Pallone’s case | Pallone contended the amendment postdated his filing and should not control | Appellee argued the amendment codified existing case law and clarified existing limits | Court concluded the amendment merely codified established precedent and does not change the result |
| Whether mandamus was available to compel the trial court to act | Pallone sought mandamus to obtain approval/transmission of the statement | Appellee argued an adequate remedy at law existed (complete the appellate process) and mandamus would be futile | Court held mandamus would be a vain act and dismissed the mandamus petition |
| Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file a brief | Pallone faulted procedural handling and timeliness decisions by lower courts | Appellee noted Pallone failed to file the brief and thus failed to exhaust appellate remedies | Court upheld dismissal and held Pallone had an adequate remedy (proceeding in the appeal) which he did not pursue |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Julnes v. S. Euclid City Council, 130 Ohio St.3d 6, 955 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio 2011) (mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act)
- State ex rel. Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56, 491 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1986) (transcript is "unavailable" for App.R. 9(C) purposes when appellant is indigent)