Ohio Supreme Court, 1966

State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. Walinski

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 14, 1966 · Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman

8 Ohio St. 2d 23; 222 N.E.2d 312; 37 Ohio Op. 2d 358; 1966 Ohio LEXIS 299

Cases that cite this one

138 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Seiler v. City of Norwalk (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Summerville v. City of Forest Park (Ohio 2010)
Celebrezze v. Netzley (Ohio 1990)
Huntington Natl. Bank v. R Kids Count Learning Ctr., L.L.C. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
Dibert v. Carpenter (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Long v. Hanging Rock (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Campbell v. Massucci (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)
Hubbell v. City of Xenia (Ohio 2007)
Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc. (Ohio 2002)
Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display Co. (Ohio 2002)
Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display Co., Inc. (Ohio 2002)
Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc. (Ohio 2002)
Stevens v. Ackman (Ohio 2001)
Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Associates (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Bishop v. Dresser Industries, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Kagy v. Toledo—Lucas County Port Authority (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
Lelux v. Chernick (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
Kagy v. Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
Western & Southern Life Insurance v. Braun (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
Citizens Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Brickler (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
Martin v. Central Ohio Transit Authority (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Grote v. J.S. Mayer & Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Bean v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Arotin v. Arotin (Ohio Ct. App. 2026)
Reilly v. Rastegar (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. In this action, relator seeks an order compelling the respondent judge to enter summary judgment in his behalf.

Relator, as owner and publisher of the Toledo Monitor, was joined as a defendant with the Monitor in an action for libel.

Relator filed a motion for summary judgment on his own behalf. After a hearing thereon, respondent trial judge denied the motion for summary judgment. He now contends that the judge had a mandatory duty to enter summary judgment in his favor.

Relator contends that he has no appeal from the denial of the summary judgment, and that he will be irreparably injured because he will have to come to Toledo from New York for the trial in the libel action.

An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not a final appealable order. See Priester v. State Foundry Co., 172 Ohio St. 28. Such order is similar to the overruling of a demurrer, which is not a final appealable order. Schindler v. Standard Oil Co., 165 Ohio St. 76.

*24Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or create an appeal from an order which is not a final order, which relator seeks to do in this action. 35 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 377, Mandamus, Section 100.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

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