State ex rel. Dollison v. Reddy
Decision Date | 12 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1374,77-1374 |
Citation | 378 N.E.2d 150,55 Ohio St.2d 59 |
Parties | , 9 O.O.3d 67 The STATE ex rel. DOLLISON, Registrar, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Appellant, v. REDDY, Law Director, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This is an appeal by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the state of Ohio (relator herein) from a dismissal sua sponte by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County of relator's complaint in mandamus.
Relator is requesting that court to issue an order requiring that the Law Director of the city of Garfield Heights (respondent, herein) perform his alleged statutory duties under R. C. 1901.34, 4507.40, and 4511.191 of representing the Registrar in "point" cases (R. C. 4507.40(N)) and "implied consent" cases (R. C. 4511.191(G)) filed in Municipal Court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed relator's complaint on the basis that relator could have brought a declaratory judgment action under R. C. Chapter 2721 and thus had a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
The cause is now before this court upon appeal as a matter of right.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Mark A. Stanton, Columbus, for appellant.
Paul A. Grau, Cleveland, for appellee.
Neither this court nor the Court of Appeals has discretion to decline jurisdiction of an action in mandamus. State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631. Whether the writ should be allowed in a given case is discretionary with the court.
Mandamus is available to the relator in the present cause, even though he might have sought a declaratory judgment. The availability of a declaratory judgment action does not bar the issuance of a writ of mandamus when the relator otherwise makes a proper showing, although the court may consider the availability of declaratory judgment as one element in exercising its discretion whether the writ should issue.
This court proceeds to enter the judgment which the Court of Appeals should have entered, by issuing the writ as prayed for. The law director of the city of Garfield Heights has a clear duty under R. C. 1901.34 to represent the registrar in license-suspension cases under R. C. 4507.40 and 4511.191.
The issue is confused by the fact that most of R. C. 1901.34 concerns legal representation in criminal cases, whereas this court has said that proceedings under R. C. 4511.191 are civil in nature. Kettering v. Baker (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 351, 328 N.E.2d 805. However, the part of R. C. 1901.34 that creates the law director's duty does not refer to criminal cases at all. Actually it is quite general: "The city director of law shall perform the same duties, as far as they are applicable thereto, as are required of the prosecuting attorney of the county." One of the duties "required of the prosecuting attorney" is to represent the registrar in most license-suspension cases under R. C. 4507.40 and 4511.191 when the petition is filed in the county court. But, when the petition is filed in the Municipal Court, the duty is "applicable," not to the prosecuting attorney, but to "the city or director of law," because R. C. 4507.40 and 4511.191 both state that "(i)f the petition is filed in the municipal court, the registrar shall be represented as provided in section 1901.34 of the Revised Code."
The mere existence of a declaratory judgment action as an alternative remedy does not justify a decision not to grant the writ in a case such as this. Here, there is no special reason why relator should be required to pursue the remedy of declaratory judgment. Cf. State ex rel. Bennett v. Lime, 55 Ohio St.2d 62, 378 N.E.2d 152 decided this day. To the contrary, respondent's failure to carry out his statutory duties has impaired the registrar's ability to enforce R. C. 4507.40 and 4511.191. Those statutes are designed to protect the public safety by preventing the recurrence of traffic violations. The registrar can not enforce those sections without legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO v. Spellacy, AFL-CIO
...rights, and mandamus is the only remedy that can achieve that determination in an adequate fashion. See, generally, State, ex rel. Dollison, v. Reddy (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 59 ; State, ex rel. Cody v. Toner, Therefore, it appears that if the appellants are able to show that an agreement was ......
-
State ex rel. Essi v. City of Lakewood, Ohio
...at 161-162, 228 N.E.2d 631. State ex rel. Bennett v. Lime , 55 Ohio St.2d 62, 378 N.E.2d 152 (1978) ; and State ex rel. Dollison v. Reddy , 55 Ohio St.2d 59, 378 N.E.2d 150 (1978). {¶26} There are peculiar principles to public records mandamus actions. Pursuant to R.C. 149.43, mandamus is t......
-
State ex rel. Capital One Bank NA v. Karner
...useless." Id. at 161-162, see, also, State ex rel. Bennett v. Lime (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 62, 378 N.E.2d 152; State ex rel. Dollison v. Reddy (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 59, 378 N.E.2d 150; and State ex rel. Mettler v. Commissioners of Athens County (1941), 139 Ohio St. 86, 38 N.E.2d 393. {¶ 15} C......
-
State ex rel. Novak v. Boyle, 2005 Ohio 1199 (OH 3/16/2005)
...St.2d 127, 304 N.E.2d 382; Pressley; State ex rel. Bennett v. Lime (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 62, 378 N.E.2d 152; State ex rel. Dollison v. Reddy (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 59, 378 N.E.2d 150; and State ex rel. Mettler Commissioners of Athens County (1941), 139 Ohio St. 86, 38 N.E.2d 393. {¶ 8} Mr. N......