Ames v. Revere Board — Ohio Supreme Court rejects public-records mandamus claim

Case
State ex rel. Ames v. Revere Local School District Board of Education
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Judge
Per Curiam
Date Decided
August 26, 2026
Docket No.
2025-1442
Topics
Public records; Mandamus; School boards; Summary judgment
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Brian Ames requested four categories of Revere Local School District Board of Education records, including meeting-notice rules, approved meeting minutes, special-meeting notices, and the district’s records-retention schedule. The treasurer emailed special-meeting notices and directed Ames to policies and meeting minutes on the district website.

Ames filed a public-records mandamus action after objecting that the minutes were unsigned and that the records-retention policy was not in the form he believed Ohio law required. The board submitted evidence that it had supplied all responsive records in its possession. The Ninth District granted the board summary judgment, concluding the mandamus claims were moot.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. The board’s provision of the responsive records mooted Ames’s Public Records Act claims, and Ames offered no evidence that the board possessed additional responsive records or had withheld any requested record.

Ames’s objections concerned whether the board maintained its records in forms required by statutes or board policies. Those objections did not support relief in this public-records mandamus case, which sought compliance with R.C. 149.43. Nor could Ames enlarge his pleaded claims through summary-judgment briefing or on appeal. His undeveloped requests for statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs were forfeited.

Key Takeaways

  • A public-records mandamus claim is generally moot once the public office provides the requested records.
  • The Public Records Act does not authorize a writ requiring an office to create records it does not possess.
  • A relator cannot use summary-judgment briefing or an appeal to add unpleaded mandamus claims.

Why It Matters

The decision distinguishes a dispute over access to existing public records from a claim that a public body has failed to create or maintain records in a legally prescribed form. A requester seeking the latter relief must plead an appropriate claim rather than recast it as a Public Records Act request.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top