State ex rel. May v. Cissell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. The State ex rel. May, Appellant, v. Cissell, Clerk, et al., Appellees. [Cite as State ex rel. May v. Cissell (1995), Ohio St.3d .] Mandamus to compel correction of trial court records -- Writ denied when adequate remedy in the ordinary cause of law via App.R. 9(E) exists. (Nos. 95-546 and 95-547 -- Submitted June 21, 1995 -Decided August 9, 1995.) Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-940988 and C-941043. Morris May, pro se. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. The judgments of the court of appeals dismissing the complaints for writs of mandamus are affirmed on the basis that appellant possesses an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to correct the trial court records via App.R. 9(E). See State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (1995), 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 592, 639 N.E.2d 89, 1194-1195, and cases cited therein. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
