State ex rel. Tarrier v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (Slip Opinion)
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Per Curiam
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of a writ of mandamus, holding that the public employee failed to establish a clear legal right to transfer from the combined retirement plan to the traditional plan or a clear legal duty on the retirement board to grant such transfer.
Excerpt
Mandamus—Writ sought by public employee ordering retirement board to transfer her from one type of retirement plan to different type of plan—No provision in R.C. Chapter 145 establishes clear legal right for public employee to obtain relief sought or imposes clear legal duty on retirement board to grant it—Court of appeals' denial of writ affirmed.
Similar Rulings
Objection of respondent sustained and writ of mandamus denied. Relator has not shown that she has a clear legal right to the relief she requests, nor that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act requested. Therefore, relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Public Employees Retirement Board, to retroactively modify relator's retirement plan with the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System from the Combined Plan to the Traditional Pension Plan, effective to October 8, 1987, her original date of hire by the Franklin County Public Defender.
Mandamus—Public-records requests—Relator failed to show that the only named respondent, a mail-room employee, had a clear legal duty to provide requested public records—Court of appeals improperly dismissed complaint after granting summary judgment to respondent—Court of appeals' judgment modified, and writ and request for statutory damages denied.
Attorney fees—$400 an hour determined to be reasonable rate given respondents' concession and the absence of satisfactory evidence submitted by relator in support of $690 rate billed by relator's attorneys—Respondents invoked "good-faith exception" too late because former R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(c) does not provide a basis for reducing an award of attorney fees but, rather, applies only to the court's initial determination of whether to award fees to a prevailing relator—Relator's attorney-fee application granted in amount of $28,120.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.