Ohio Supreme Court, 1968

State ex rel. Banaszkewycz v. Merrick

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 17, 1968 · Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman

15 Ohio St. 2d 234; 238 N.E.2d 802; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 201; 1968 Ohio LEXIS 403

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Municipal Constr. Equip. v. Cleveland, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State Ex Rel King v. Fuerst, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
National City Bank v. Beyer, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)

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.

Relator filed his motion in the Probate Court, apparently relying on the authority of Section 2729.01, Revised Code, which states:

*235“When the records, dockets, journals, and files, or any part thereof, of any Probate Court have been lost * * * upon the application of a party interested * * # the [Probate] Court may order the restoration of any * * * record of any proceeding or document required to be recorded or filed * *

Thus, the Probate Court had power to grant such motion. The question of whether the motion should be granted was decided by the Probate Court adversely to relator. Its judgment was affirmed. The matter is now res judicata. The writ of mandamus will not lie to grant relator another appeal from that decision. See State, ex rel. Luckhaupt, v. McClelland (1949), 151 Ohio St. 17, 84 N. E. 2d 275.

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

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.