Ohio Supreme Court, 1969

State ex rel. Cochran v. Quillin

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 8, 1969 · Corrigan, Duncan, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft

20 Ohio St. 2d 6; 251 N.E.2d 607; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 53; 1969 Ohio LEXIS 289

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Knox v. Russo (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
McGrath v. Cuyahoga County Ct. Pleas, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State Ex Rel. Safety Natl. Cas. v. Cook, Unpublished Decision (6-12-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1995)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1995)
State ex rel. Jacobs v. Municipal Court (Ohio 1972)
State ex rel. Elkins v. Fais (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State Ex Rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty., Unpublished Decision (12-19-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Internatl. Heat 3 v. Cuy. Ct. Com. Pleas, Unpublished Decision (1-20-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Utley v. Abruzzo (Ohio 1985)
State ex rel. St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church v. Riley (Ohio 1973)

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 procedendo originating in this court, by which relator seeks to compel the trial court to proceed in three separate actions filed therein by relator on his own behalf. The petition and answer show that one of these actions is still in the pleading stage: that the second is pending on a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants, the ruling on which has been delayed by petitioner’s own request; and that the third is at issue but petitioner has not complied with the court rule requiring a request that the case be set for trial.

Procedendo is an extraordinary remedy. State, ex rel. General Accident Group, v. Cramer, 7 Ohio St. 2d 83. It does not lie to control or interfere with ordinary court procedure or process. The actions to which the present petition is directed are all proceeding according to normal court procedure.

Therefore the writ of procedendo is denied.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan and Corrigan, JJ., concur.

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