Ohio Supreme Court, 1972

State ex rel. Ratliff v. Marshall

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 10, 1972 · Brown, Corrigan, Herbert, Leach, Neill, Schneider, Stern

30 Ohio St. 2d 101; 282 N.E.2d 582; 59 Ohio Op. 2d 114; 1972 Ohio LEXIS 462

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Levin v. City of Sheffield Lake (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake (Ohio 1994)
State, Ex Rel. Doe v. Tracy (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Knox v. Russo (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1988)
State ex rel. Hull v. Gaughan (Ohio 1988)
State ex rel. Wallace v. Tyack (Ohio 1984)
State Ex Rel. Parks v. Olivito, 08 Ca 855 (8-21-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State Ex Rel Britford v. Fais, 07ap-962 (4-29-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State Ex Rel Neguse v. Crawford, Unpublished Decision (3-15-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State Ex Rel. Rutan v. Bessey, Unpublished Decision (12-20-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Davis v. Lucas Cty. Prosecutor's Office, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Howard v. Spore, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Christiansen, Unpublished Decision (8-5-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. McComish v. Bates, Unpublished Decision (5-13-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Batten v. Reece (Ohio 1982)

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 G-uriam.

Procedendo is a high prerogative writ of an extraordinary nature. It is an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment and does not lie to control or interfere with ordinary court procedure. Procedendo does not lie where, as here, there is no clear legal right to such relief.

Moreover, even if relators’ complaint is considered to be in mandamus, that remedy is not available where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Here, relators have an adequate remedy by appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ sought is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

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