State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, No. 96-1185

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MOYER; PFEIFER
Citation669 N.E.2d 835,76 Ohio St.3d 580
PartiesThe STATE ex rel. FINDLAY PUBLISHING COMPANY v. SCHROEDER.
Docket NumberNo. 96-1185
Decision Date02 October 1996

Page 580

76 Ohio St.3d 580
669 N.E.2d 835
The STATE ex rel. FINDLAY PUBLISHING COMPANY
v.
SCHROEDER.
No. 96-1185.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted July 24, 1996.
Decided Oct. 2, 1996.

[669 N.E.2d 836] Prior to February 24, 1995, Hancock County Coroner Leroy L. Schroeder, M.D., respondent, prepared and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas a report of each death coming under his jurisdiction in the county. Since February 24, 1995, none of Schroeder's records has been available for public inspection, i.e., they had not been filed in the clerk's office. Following Schroeder's repeated refusal to permit inspection of his records, the Findlay Publishing Company, relator, filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Schroeder to keep records pursuant to R.C. 313.09 and to permit public inspection and copying of these records pursuant to R.C. 313.10 and 149.43.

On May 20, 1996, after relator's commencement of this mandamus action, Schroeder filed his records in the clerk's office [669 N.E.2d 837] concerning all cases coming under his jurisdiction and supervision since February 24, 1995 involving persons dying by accidental or natural causes and, in one instance, by homicide. However, Schroeder did not file any of his remaining records, which consist of cases in which the cause of death was suicide. Schroeder did not provide public access to these records because family members of the suicide victims requested that the records remain confidential.

Schroeder has filed a motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, for summary judgment. Schroeder has attached to his motion evidence of a declaratory judgment action on the same subject pending in the common pleas court.

Betts, Miller & Russo and Ralph D. Russo, Findlay, for relator.

Robert A. Fry, Hancock County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) provides that in original actions other than habeas corpus filed in this court:

"The respondent shall file an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss within 21 days of service of the summons and complaint. The respondent may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings at the same time an answer is filed.

Page 581

After the time for filing an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court will either dismiss the case or issue an alternative or peremptory writ, if a writ has not already been issued."

Schroeder filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss which alternatively requests summary judgment. In order to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in relator's favor. Civ.R. 12(B)(6); State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633 N.E.2d 1128, 1129.

Here, relator concedes that it has now been provided with some of the records it requested. Therefore, this portion of relator's mandamus action is moot. State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 173, 661 N.E.2d 1049, 1051; see, also, State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 12, 16, 661 N.E.2d 170, 174, and cases cited therein (courts may take judicial notice of appropriate matters in determining Civ.R. 12[B] motion without converting it to a motion for summary judgment); Hughes v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Revision (1944), 143 Ohio St. 559, 560, 28 O.O. 477, 478, 56 N.E.2d 63, 64.

Schroeder claims that the remainder of relator's mandamus action is subject to dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because of a previously filed declaratory judgment action. To establish this assertion, Schroeder erroneously relies on evidentiary material attached to his motion. See State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 96, 647 N.E.2d 788, 791 (court cannot rely on allegations or evidence outside complaint in determining Civ.R. 12[B] motion). Based solely on the complaint, it does not appear beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts entitling it to a writ of mandamus. Schroeder's motion is therefore overruled. Further, Schroeder's alternative request for summary judgment is denied because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 practice notes
  • Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, Case No. 2019-00789PQ
    • United States
    • Court of Claims of Ohio
    • August 25, 2020
    ...are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in claimant's favor. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996). As long as there is a set of facts consistent with the complaint that would allow the claimant to recover, dismissa......
  • State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch., No. 2019CA0047
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • October 2, 2019
    ...law remains unsettled as to whether deceased persons have privacy interests.’ " State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder , 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 583, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996), quoting 1 Braverman & Chetwynd, Information Law (1985) 411, Section 10-4.1.2.{¶ 19} Ohio cases appear to interpr......
  • State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch., No. 2019-1433
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 5, 2020
    ...tort claim for invasion of privacy.{¶ 27} Appellants also cite 170 N.E.3d 756 State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder , 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996), in support of their argument that the application of the OSPA to records of deceased adult former students is in deroga......
  • State ex rel. WBNS TV, Inc. v. Dues, 101 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 4/14/2004), Case No. 2003-1476.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 14, 2004
    ...it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations"); see, also, State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 582, 669 N.E.2d 835 ("in that there is no legislative scheme protecting the names of suicide victims from disclosure or incorporating the perso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
115 cases
  • Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, Case No. 2019-00789PQ
    • United States
    • Court of Claims of Ohio
    • August 25, 2020
    ...are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in claimant's favor. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996). As long as there is a set of facts consistent with the complaint that would allow the claimant to recover, dismissa......
  • State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch., No. 2019CA0047
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • October 2, 2019
    ...law remains unsettled as to whether deceased persons have privacy interests.’ " State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder , 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 583, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996), quoting 1 Braverman & Chetwynd, Information Law (1985) 411, Section 10-4.1.2.{¶ 19} Ohio cases appear to interpr......
  • State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch., No. 2019-1433
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 5, 2020
    ...tort claim for invasion of privacy.{¶ 27} Appellants also cite 170 N.E.3d 756 State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder , 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996), in support of their argument that the application of the OSPA to records of deceased adult former students is in deroga......
  • State ex rel. WBNS TV, Inc. v. Dues, 101 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 4/14/2004), Case No. 2003-1476.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 14, 2004
    ...it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations"); see, also, State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 582, 669 N.E.2d 835 ("in that there is no legislative scheme protecting the names of suicide victims from disclosure or incorporating the perso......
  • 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