Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-20-2019
Case Style:
JON T. HARMON -v- JUDGE EDWARD EMMETT O'FARRELL
Case Number: 2019 AP 07 0022
Judge: Craig R. Baldwin
Court: COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT R. STEPHENSON II
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Call 888-354-4529 if you need a Criminal Defense Attorney in Ohio.
On July 18, 2019, Jon Harmon filed a petition for writ of mandamus to
compel Judge Edward E. O’Farrell to continue a hearing the trial court conducted on July
15, 2019. Mr. Harmon further asks this Court to issue a stay to preclude further
garnishment of funds until the trial court conducts a hearing and rules on an accounting.
On July 26, 2019, the Tuscarawas County Prosecutor, on behalf of Judge O’Farrell, filed
a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Harmon’s petition for writ of mandamus. In response, Mr. Harmon
filed a Motion to Quash Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
{¶2} Upon review of Mr. Harmon’s petition, we grant the prosecutor’s motion to
dismiss. Mr. Harmon is not entitled to a writ of mandamus because R.C. 2731.04 provides
that an application for writ of mandamus “must be * * * in the name of the state on the
relation of the person applying.” “Thus, a petition for writ of mandamus may be dismissed
for failure to bring the action in the name of the state.” Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d
374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶10, citing Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio
St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶34. Mr. Harmon’s petition was not brought
in the name of the state and therefore, his claim for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.
Outcome: The Court also denies Mr. Harmon’s request for a stay and his request to
quash Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: