From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, as Rel. Grosser, v. Boy

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 12, 1976
46 Ohio St. 2d 184 (Ohio 1976)

Opinion

No. 75-1019

Decided May 12, 1976.

Mandamus — R.C. 2731.11, construed — Attorney fees not includable.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

The facts leading to the present controversy are stated in State, ex rel. Grosser, v. Boy (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 498, wherein this court, on June 25, 1975, allowed a writ of mandamus sought by appellants, requiring appellee Superintendent of the Strongsville Board of Education to permit appellants to inspect and obtain copies of certain high school records pursuant to R.C. 149.43. In that case, this court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and awarded appellants their costs expended in this court.

On August 20, 1975, appellants, pursuant to R.C. 2731.11, filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for an order awarding them their costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, as prayed for in the original complaint in mandamus.

That motion was overruled, and appellants appeal to this court as a matter of right.

Messrs. Cain Lobo and Mr. Arthur L. Cain, for appellants.

Messrs. Squire, Sanders Dempsey and Mr. Eben G. Crawford, for appellees.


R.C. 2731.11 provides, in part, as follows:

"If judgment in a proceeding for a writ of mandamus is rendered for the plaintiff, the relator may recover the damages which he has sustained, to be ascertained by the court or a jury * * * as in a civil action, and costs. * * * "

Appellants recognize the general rule in Ohio that "in the absence of a statutory provision making attorney fees a part of costs, such fees cannot be so taxed" ( State, ex rel. Michaels, v. Morse, 165 Ohio St. 599, 607), and it is evident that R.C. 2731.11 does not expressly provide for the recovery of attorney fees. See Sorin v. Bd. of Edn. (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 177.

Nevertheless, appellants argue that the "public benefit" conferred by their successful mandamus action, and the term "damages" in R.C. 2731.11, support the necessity of the award of attorney fees herein. However, this cause neither meets the situation set forth in State, ex rel. White, v. Cleveland (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 37, wherein the bestowal of a public benefit concomitant with a statutory authorization for attorney fees was held sufficient to demand consideration of allowance of those fees, nor is the "bad faith, vexatious, wanton, obdurate or oppressive conduct exception" to the "American rule" that attorney fees are not recoverable in the absence of statutory authorization demonstrated to be applicable to this cause. Sorin v. Bd. of Edn., supra.

With respect to the recovery of appellants' costs expended in the Court of Appeals, as distinguished from the claim for the recovery of attorney fees, no reason was stated by that court for overruling the motion for costs. As the prevailing party, and in the absence of persuasive reasons to the contrary, appellants should be awarded their costs.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified, and appellants are awarded their costs in the Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals as to denial of an award for attorney fees is affirmed.

Judgment accordingly.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, as Rel. Grosser, v. Boy

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 12, 1976
46 Ohio St. 2d 184 (Ohio 1976)
Case details for

State, as Rel. Grosser, v. Boy

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. GROSSER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BOY ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 12, 1976

Citations

46 Ohio St. 2d 184 (Ohio 1976)
347 N.E.2d 539

Citing Cases

White v. Soo

"`The general rule in Ohio is that, absent a statutory provision allowing attorney fees as costs, the…

Ottman v. Gates

The general rule in Ohio is that, absent a statutory provision allowing attorney fees as costs, the…