Court Opinion

ID: 9518402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:52:06.134732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:52.568538
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the result.
I cannot concur in Syllabus ¶3 or that portion of the opinion supporting it. I decline to rule or comment on a constitutional question which has been neither briefed nor argued nor adequately preserved on appeal.
I believe the only issue before us is the propriety of the order denying a writ of mandamus. In the absence of any constitutional question, the trial court was clearly correct in denying the writ, for reasons stated in the majority opinion.
The absence of a constitutional question is due entirely to the failure of the appellant to preserve his constitutional question, if he had one.