Opinion ID: 2691733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Second Mandamus Case

Text: {¶ 16} In January 2009, relators filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, Erie MetroParks and its board of commissioners, to “initiate, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the Writ, appropriation proceedings” pursuant to R.C. Chapter 163. After the park district and its board filed an answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, we granted an alternative writ. Respondents filed an amended answer raising a statute-oflimitations defense. {¶ 17} The parties have now filed evidence and briefs. We granted relators the Hohlers’ application to dismiss their claims. {¶ 18} The parties have also filed motions for leave to supplement their evidence. For the parties’ initial motions, because they are unopposed and neither side claims prejudice from their consideration by the court, we grant the motions. We also grant relators’ July 30 motion for leave to supplement their evidence because we find that the proffered evidence is pertinent to their mandamus claim and relators could not have been submitted it at the time that their evidence was due. {¶ 19} This case is now before us for our consideration of the merits.