Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE STATE, EX REL. FANT, APPELLANT, v. MENGEL, CLERK, APPELLEE.

Per Curiam.

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.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE, EX REL. FANT, v. MENGEL
(Feb 5, 1992)