State, ex rel. Fant v. Mengel
| Decision Date | 05 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1900,90-1900 |
| Citation | 584 N.E.2d 664,62 Ohio St.3d 455 |
| Parties | THe STATE ex rel. FANT, Appellant, v. MENGEL, Clerk, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellant, Henry J. Fant, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, requesting that appellee, Marcia J. Mengel, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio, turn over to him the "full-name [sic ] and title of the person in respondent Mengel's office that was responsible for receiving and filing the original record in Case No. 89-1168 on appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals." The court of appeals granted appellee's motion for summary judgment, based on her affidavit that no such document, device, or item existed under her jurisdiction.
The cause is before the court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Henry J. Fant, pro se.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., and Shawn H. Nau, Columbus, for appellee.
For the purposes of the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.011 defines "records" as including:
" * * * any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office."
The information sought by appellant is not a document, device, or item, as required by this definition; therefore, it is not a record. Since the information in question is not a record, it is not a public record subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. Moreover, the Public Records Act does not compel appellee to create a new document to satisfy appellant's demands. State, ex rel. Scanlon, v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 379, 544 N.E.2d 680, 683.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cater v. N. Olmsted
...request need not be disclosed if it is not recorded in the format requested. Cater's argument is based on State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 455, 584 N.E.2d 664, State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 544 N.E.2d 680, and State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. S......
-
State ex rel. A.F. Krainz Co. v. Jackson, 98104
...the relator's demands." State ex rel. Sprague v. Wellington, 7th Dist. No. 11 MA 112, 2012-Ohio-1698, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel, 62 Ohio St.3d 455, 584 N.E.2d 664 (1992). {¶38} Further, given that the purported U.C. Map had no bearing on the City's decision to change the street's......
-
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron
...in question is not a record, it is not a public record subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43." State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 455, 584 N.E.2d 664, 665. R.C. 149.011 broadly defines "records." This definition is to be given an expansive rather than a restrictive constru......
- State, ex rel. Clark v. Toledo