Mootispaw v. Eckstein, No. 96-777

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MOYER
Citation667 N.E.2d 1197,76 Ohio St.3d 383
Decision Date21 August 1996
Docket NumberNo. 96-777
PartiesMOOTISPAW, Appellant, v. ECKSTEIN, Pros. Atty., Appellee.

Page 383

76 Ohio St.3d 383
667 N.E.2d 1197
MOOTISPAW, Appellant,
v.
ECKSTEIN, Pros. Atty., Appellee.
No. 96-777.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted July 10, 1996.
Decided Aug. 21, 1996.

[667 N.E.2d 1198]

Page 384

Appellant, Rusty E. Mootispaw, is an inmate currently imprisoned at Lebanon Correctional Institution. In 1981, the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas convicted Mootispaw of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years to life in prison. At that time, Mootispaw was represented by attorneys John C. Bryan and James L. Butler, and the state was represented by then-Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, John H. Roszmann, and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney James A. Kiger.

In October 1994, Mootispaw allegedly received mail from Bryan which included a letter dated August 9, 1986 from Bryan to Kiger in which Bryan stated that Mootispaw was aware of Bryan and Kiger's "knowledge of his innocence of murder."

In August 1995, Mootispaw filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Fayette County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney Steven Eckstein, to investigate the alleged fraud committed by Bryan and Kiger. Eckstein filed an answer as well as a motion for summary judgment. Attached to Eckstein's motion for summary judgment was his affidavit in which he stated that (1) he had received a letter from Mootispaw along with the alleged letter from Bryan to Kiger, (2) he had investigated the matter by conducting interviews with Roszmann, Bryan, Butler, and officers of the local bar association, and (3) upon completion of his investigation, he had concluded that Mootispaw's allegations were meritless.

Mootispaw filed a motion for summary judgment and reply to Eckstein's summary judgment motion. Mootispaw contended that Eckstein had conflicts of interest in proceeding with the investigation because (1) Butler, one of Mootispaw's trial counsel, is a law partner of the president of the local bar association that Eckstein met with to conduct investigative interviews, and (2) Eckstein represented the attorneys complained about [667 N.E.2d 1199] by Mootispaw in Mootispaw's false imprisonment action. See Mootispaw v. Doe (Oct. 23, 1995), Fayette App. No. CA95-03-009, unreported, 1995 WL 617476, appeal not allowed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 1523, 660 N.E.2d 743.

In March 1996, the court of appeals granted Eckstein's motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. The court of appeals determined that based on Eckstein's affidavit,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
626 practice notes
  • State v. McKnight, No. 2002-2130.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 30, 2005
    ...the decision whether to prosecute is discretionary and not normally subject to judicial review." Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197; State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d {¶ 48} The trial court abused its discretion by ......
  • Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. City of Akron, No. 2001-P-0127.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 31, 2004
    ...party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d {¶ 38} The Supreme Court stated in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 296, 662 N.E.2d 264, that "* * * the moving par......
  • Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 2004 Ohio 411 (Ohio App. 1/26/2004), Case No. 02CA2863.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • January 26, 2004
    ...mon-moving party. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-370, 696 N.E.2d 201; Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46. We further note that parties mov......
  • State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2009 Ohio 4256 (Ohio App. 8/21/2009), No. 2008-L-007.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • August 21, 2009
    ...party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made." Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385. (Citation {¶35} Summary judgment will be granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affida......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
626 cases
  • State v. McKnight, No. 2002-2130.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 30, 2005
    ...the decision whether to prosecute is discretionary and not normally subject to judicial review." Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197; State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d {¶ 48} The trial court abused its discretion by ......
  • Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. City of Akron, No. 2001-P-0127.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 31, 2004
    ...party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d {¶ 38} The Supreme Court stated in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 296, 662 N.E.2d 264, that "* * * the moving par......
  • Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 2004 Ohio 411 (Ohio App. 1/26/2004), Case No. 02CA2863.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • January 26, 2004
    ...mon-moving party. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-370, 696 N.E.2d 201; Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46. We further note that parties mov......
  • State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2009 Ohio 4256 (Ohio App. 8/21/2009), No. 2008-L-007.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • August 21, 2009
    ...party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made." Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385. (Citation {¶35} Summary judgment will be granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affida......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT