State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 00-379.
| Decision Date | 16 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-379.,00-379. |
| Citation | 89 Ohio St.3d 456,732 NE 2d 983 |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. FUERST, CLERK, APPELLEE. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Claude A. Smith, pro se.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristen L. Lusnia, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Smith's assertion lacks merit.
Fuerst mailed notice of the October 17, 1996 entry to Smith. Under Civ.R. 5(B), service was complete upon mailing. And Fuerst noted in the docket that service had been made. Therefore, Fuerst complied with his duty to serve the entry on Smith, and mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 548-549, 721 N.E.2d 1055, 1056; see, also, Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851, paragraph two of the syllabus.
In addition, Smith had adequate remedies at law by a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment or appeal to raise his claim that he was entitled to additional time to perfect his appeal from the October 17, 1996 judgment. See State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537; Defini v. Broadview Hts. (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 209, 214, 601 N.E.2d 199, 202.
Finally, the fact that Smith may have, as he claims on appeal, already unsuccessfully invoked an alternative remedy to raise this issue does not entitle him to extraordinary relief in mandamus. "Where a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully invoked, a writ of mandamus will not lie to relitigate the same issue." State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summers v. Lancia Nursing Homes, Inc.
...21} Ohio Supreme Court case law indicates the actions taken by the clerk complied with Civ.R. 58(B). State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 732 N.E.2d 983 (2000). In that case, Smith filed a mandamus action against the clerk of courts seeking to have the court order the clerk to ......
-
State ex rel. Wash. v. D'Apolito
...trial-court judge to reenter a judgment entry in a case in which the relator had appeared as the plaintiff); State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst , 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 732 N.E.2d 983 (2000) (requesting a writ of mandamus to compel a common-pleas-court clerk to re-serve a judgment entry denying post......
-
Frazier v. Cincinnati School of Med. Massage, 2007 Ohio 2390 (Ohio App. 5/18/2007)
...is, accordingly, affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Hildebrandt, P.J., and Hendon, J., concur. 1. See App.R. 4(A). 2. See State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 2000-Ohio-218, 732 N.E.2d 983; State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy, 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 1997-Ohio-125, 685 N.E.2d 537. 3. State e......
-
State v. Calabrese
...and reissue, rather than an extraordinary writ. State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst (Feb. 10, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77325, affirmed 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 200-Ohio-218, 732 N.E.2d 983. To the extent that McGrath seeks mandamus to compel the respondent judge to serve him with all orders in the futu......