358 N.E.2d 615
No. 76-468Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided December 27, 1976.
Mandamus — Denial of writ — Appeal — Supreme Court will not weigh questions of evidence.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County.
Relators, Thomas W. Lippitt and James Rinehart, filed an original action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Summit County to compel respondent, the clerk of the Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court, to open for inspection certain records of persons arrested within the jurisdictional limits of the Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court. The records requested for inspection included (1) case files containing information required to be kept in traffic and criminal cases, and (2) temporary dockets, instituted for the convenience of arresting police departments outside the city of Cuyahoga Falls, listing the names, addresses and specific local violations charged against those arrested by such departments for operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.
The Court of Appeals found that the case files were public records required to be kept pursuant to R.C. 1901.31, Crim. R. 55 and Traf. R. 3(B), and granted a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to provide access to case files not “actually being used by the court during the pendency of the case.” The court denied the writ as to the temporary docket.
Relators appeal that partial denial of the writ to this court as a matter of right.
Messrs. Cain Lobo and Mr. Robert Bruce Henn, for appellants.
Mr. Steven J. Schwartz, deputy law director, for appellee.
Page 380
Per Curiam.
The main issue in this cause is whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the writ of mandamus as to the temporary docket.
The Court of Appeals’ denial of the writ was based on its conclusion that the evidence as to the “nature and content of the `temporary docket'” was too “inconclusive” to determine whether the temporary docket was a public record.
When the challenge to a decision denying a writ of mandamus is based on questions of evidence, “`* * * it is the established practice of the Supreme Court to refuse to weigh the evidence to determine * * * whether correct conclusions as to the facts were reached by the court below.'” State, ex rel. Pomeroy, v. Webber
(1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 84, 86. Relators’ appeal is based upon such a question of evidence.[*] Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
CORRIGAN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.
HERBERT, J., concurs in the judgment.
O’NEILL, C.J., and STERN, J., dissent.
STERN, J., dissenting.
I am of the view that under the authority of R.C. 149.40 and 149.43, and this court’s decision in Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton
(1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 107, the temporary docket is a public record, and hence must be made available for public inspection at all reasonable times.
I would reverse the Court of Appeals.
O’NEILL, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Page 381