State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1914.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-1914 THE STATE EX REL. BARB, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY JURY COMMISSIONER, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1914.] Mandamus Petition seeking order compelling access to verdict forms and list of prospective jurors Writ denied Res judicata bars claim as relator was in privity with previous relator seeking same records R.C. 149.43(B)(8) requires finding by sentencing judge that records were necessary to support justiciable claim. (No. 2011-0051 Submitted April 19, 2011 Decided April 26, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 95005, 2010-Ohio-6190. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus sought by appellant, Herbert E. Barb Jr., for verdict forms and lists of SUPREME COURT OF OHIO prospective jurors in criminal cases involving his brother, inmate Danny Barb. Res judicata barred Herbert from instituting his own mandamus action seeking some of the same records that his brother requested because as Danny s designee he was in privity with him. State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., 124 Ohio St.3d 238, 2010-Ohio-120, 921 N.E.2d 236; State ex rel. Roberson v. Mason, Cuyahoga App. No. 91783, 2009-Ohio-1884, ¶ 8-9. And Danny cannot circumvent the requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires a finding by his sentencing judge or the judge s successor that the requested information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim, by designating his brother to request the records for him. As the court of appeals concluded, Herbert may not do indirectly what Danny is prohibited from doing directly. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Herbert Barb Jr., pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. ______________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
