Ohio Supreme Court, 1977

State ex rel. Pajestka v. Faulhaber

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 27, 1977 · Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney

50 Ohio St. 2d 41; 362 N.E.2d 263; 4 Ohio Op. 3d 113; 1977 Ohio LEXIS 371

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Chester Township v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
State ex rel. Burnes v. Athens County Clerk of Courts (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Burnes v. Athens Cty. Clerk of Courts (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Clark v. Lile (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Clark v. Lile (Ohio 1997)
Myers v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
Nichols v. Sidney Motors (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
State ex rel. Ware v. Byrd (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Henderson v. Clerk of Courts (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams County Board of Elections (Ohio 1988)
State, Ex Rel. Labatte v. Baynes (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
Matter of Tokich, Unpublished Decision (3-13-1998) (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
Joe Soler Co. v. 5-Star Brokerage, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Lysaght v. Dollison (Ohio Ct. App. 1978)

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.

It is apparent that counsel for appellants filed his motion for reconsideration pursuant to App. R. 26, which prescribes the proper procedure for making application for reconsideration. However, App. R. 1 specifically states that the appellate rules govern procedure in appeals to courts of appeal from the trial courts.

In the instant cause, appellants brought a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals, invoking that court’s original jurisdiction granted in Section 3, Artcile IV of the Ohio Constitution. Thus the appellants mistakenly attempted to file a motion not prescribed for a court having original jurisdiction.

The proper remedy for appellants in this situation is to file a motion for relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60(B)(5). This rule provides that a party may obtain relief from the final judgment, order or proceeding of a court for any reason justifying relief from the judgment, provided that such motion is made “within a reasonable time.”

Since the appellants improperly requested relief from the order of the Court of Appeals, this court affirms the action of that court in overruling the appellants’ motion for reconsideration.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., concurs in the judgment.

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