Ohio Supreme Court, 1949

State Ex Rel. Ticknor v. Randall

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 13, 1949 · Weygandt, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner, Taet

87 N.E.2d 340; 152 Ohio St. 129; 152 Ohio St. (N.S.) 129; 39 Ohio Op. 440; 1949 Ohio LEXIS 334 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Dayton Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Enix (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
State Ex Rel. Rodgers v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State Ex Rel. Aliane v. Sheward, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Schucker v. Metcalf (Ohio 1986)
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Pfeiffer, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Doneghy, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Pachay (Ohio 1980)
State ex rel. Maus v. Montgomery (Ohio 1956)
Jenkins v. Hughes (Ohio 1952)
Kyes v. Pennsylvania Rd. (Ohio 1952)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Section 12285, General Code, reads: “The writ [of mandamus] may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.”

The Court of Common Pleas exercised its judgment, first, in overruling the motion to set the will contest for hearing only upon the issue of the interest of the contestant, and, second, in overruling the contestant’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ motion for an order of abatement and dismissal, and continuing the latter motion for determination when the will-contest case was assigned for trial.

The relators in the present proceeding, who are defendants in the will contest, seek to control the exercise of discretion by the trial court. The writ of mandamus will not be issued to control judicial discretion. State, ex rel. McCamey, v. Court of Common Pleas, 141 Ohio St., 610, 49 N. E. (2d), 761; State, ex rel. Cook, Supt., v. Court of Common Pleas, 144 Ohio St., 461, 59 N. E. (2d), 376; and State, ex rel. Dunphy, v. Graham, Judge, 146 Ohio St., 547, 67 N. E. (2d), 321.

The relators contend Section 1685, General Code, made mandatory the duty of the respondent judge to determine the motion within 30 days after its submission. Section 557-1, Revised Statutes, the predecessor of Section 1685, was held directory in James v. West, Admr., 67 Ohio St., 28, 65 N. E., 156.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and a writ denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, O. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.