1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ohio
  4. 87 Ohio
  5. 87 Ohio St.3d 158 (1999)
 

STATE EX REL. LOVE v. CUYAHOGA CTY. PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

No. 99-969.

87 Ohio St.3d 158 (1999)

THE STATE EX REL. LOVE, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ET AL., APPELLEES.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided November 10, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edsel Love, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Love's contentions lack merit.

As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to the requested records. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of unspecified laws. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993),

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