STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER v. HAMILTON COUNTY

Nos. 95-675, 95-677, 95-686 and 95-843.

75 Ohio St.3d 374 (1996)

THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER v. HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO. THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER v. CINCINNATI. THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI POST v. HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO. THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI POST v. CINCINNATI.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided March 6, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Richard L. Creighton, Jr. and Michael L. Scheier, for relator in case Nos. 95-675 and 95-677.

Baker & Hosetetler, David L. Marburger, Hilary W. Rule and Bruce W. Sanford, for relator in case Nos. 95-686 and 95-843.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. Breyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent in case Nos. 95-675 and 95-686.

Fay D. Dupuis, Cincinnati City Solicitor, and Karl P. Kadon, Deputy City Solicitor, for respondent in case Nos. 95-677 and 95-843.


Per Curiam.

These cases involve the disclosure of 911 tapes under Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. For the reasons that follow, we hold that 911 tapes in general, as well as the particular 911 tapes requested in these cases, are public records which are not exempt from disclosure.

Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Snowden (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases