State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. PORTER, APPELLANT, v. CLEVELAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), ___ Ohio
St.3d ___.]
Public records -- Mandamus to compel Cleveland Department of Public Safety
and its police chief to forward copies of certain records to relator --
Complaint dismissed, when.
(No. 98-1140 -- Submitted October 27, 1998 -- Decided December 30, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 74269.

In 1998, appellant, Paul Porter, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in
the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Porter, an inmate at the Marion
Correctional Institution, sought to compel appellees, Cleveland Department of
Public Safety and its police chief, to forward copies of certain records to him
pursuant to Ohio's Public Records Law, R.C. 149.43. Appellee Department of
Public Safety had previously advised Porter that it had no obligation to mail the
requested records to him, but that Porter could designate an individual to contact
appellee about his request. Porter, however, had no one to act as his designee.
Porter did not raise any alleged violation by appellees of the Americans with
Disabilities Act or his constitutional right of access.

The court of appeals dismissed Porter's complaint, and the cause is before
this court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Paul Porter, pro se.

Sylvester Summers, Jr., Cleveland Director of Law, Joseph J. Jerse, Chief
Assistant Director of Law, and Anthony N. Palombo, Assistant Director of Law,
for respondents.

__________________

Per Curiam. Porter asserts in his propositions of law that the court of
appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons
that follow, Porter's claims lack merit.

First, as the court of appeals correctly held, appellees did not have a clear
legal duty under R.C. 149.43 to transmit copies of the requested records to Porter
in prison by mail or other means. State ex rel. Iacovone v. Kaminski (1998), 81
Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 690 N.E.2d 4, 5; State ex rel. Mayes v. Holman (1996), 76
Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 N.E.2d 1132, 1134.

Second, Porter waived his appellate claims concerning appellees' alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and his constitutional right of
access because he failed to raise these claims in the court of appeals. "
`Ordinarily, reviewing courts do not consider questions not presented to the court
whose judgment is sought to be reversed.' " See State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co.
v. Foreman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 679 N.E.2d 706, 709, quoting Goldberg
v. Indus. Comm. (1936), 131 Ohio St. 399, 404, 6 O.O. 108, 110, 3 N.E.2d 364,
367.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2