State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes
129 Ohio St. 3d 182
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Patton sought access to Hamilton County financial reports for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008 under the Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43).
- Audited statements for those years had been posted, but 2004–2006 remained unaudited due to ongoing audits and intergovernmental concerns.
- The county auditor consulted the state auditor about posting the unaudited reports and received guidance.
- The state auditor approved labeling unaudited reports and cautioned that they were not final.
- Patton filed mandamus seeking posting of records online and statutory damages/fees; the appellate court later found moot since posting occurred.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding posting online is not mandated by R.C. 149.43(B) and damages/fees were not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether posting records online is required under R.C. 149.43(B). | Patton contends online posting fulfills access duty. | Rhodes argues statute allows inspection or copying, not online posting. | Posting online not required by statute. |
| Whether Patton is entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees under R.C. 149.43(C)(1). | Patton seeks damages/fees for failure to post as requested. | Rhodes contends there was no obligation to post, so no damages/fees. | Damages/fees not awardable. |
| Whether posting the unaudited reports satisfied the statutory requirement of access within a reasonable time. | Patton argues access was not timely provided. | Rhodes asserts posting complied with reasonable-time requirement given audit status. | Court of Appeals did not abuse discretion; posting satisfied reasonable-time requirement. |
| Whether the mandamus relief sought included a duty beyond what R.C. 149.43(B) requires, and thus was improper to compel. | Patton seeks broader relief (online posting) beyond B’s duties. | Rhodes contends mandamus cannot create duties not in statute. | Court did not err in denying broader relief; cannot create new statutory duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (2002-Ohio-2219) (legislative duty creation not for courts in mandamus)
- State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cleveland, 126 Ohio St.3d 195 (2010-Ohio-3267) (no duty to require specific record submission absent statutory requirement)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 127 Ohio St.3d 309 (2010-Ohio-5724) (axion: appellate court not to reverse correct denial due to possible error in rationale)
- State ex rel. Doe v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 44 (2009-Ohio-4149) (standard for reviewing damages/fees in public-records mandamus)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600 (2009-Ohio-1901) (considerations for time adequacy in public-records responses)