Ohio Supreme Court, 1983

State ex rel. Sowell v. Lovinger

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 13, 1983 · Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney

6 Ohio St. 3d 21; 450 N.E.2d 1176; 6 Ohio B. 18; 1983 Ohio LEXIS 769

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Seaford v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Bobb v. Marchant (Ohio 1984)
State v. Hill (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State v. Armstrong-Carter (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
Potts v. Rose (Ohio 2003)
State Ex Rel. Davet v. McMonagle, Unpublished Decision (1-13-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Williams v. Banner Buick, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
Schucker v. Metcalf (Ohio 1986)
City of Bedford v. Lacey (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
State v. Nurse (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
Mickens v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Stewart v. Giulitto, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Becker v. Hurley, Unpublished Decision (9-13-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Baumgartner, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
City of Shaker v. Liberty Title Ins. Ag., Unpublished Decision (5-13-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Archer, Unpublished Decision (5-2-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Jefferson County Children Services Board v. Hallock (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Strauss v. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 1984)

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.

The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether appellants have an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal and are thus precluded from seeking relief by way of mandamus and prohibition. See State, ex rel. St. Sava, v. Riley (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 171, 173-174 [65 O.O.2d 395]; State, ex rel. Woodbury, v. Spitler (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 134, 137 [63 O.O.2d 229], certiorari denied (1974), 415 U.S. 913 [69 O.O.2d 42].

Appellants’ complaint challenges appellee Lovinger’s right to hold the office of acting judge. In State v. Staten (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 107, 110 [54 *23O.O.2d 235], vacated on other grounds (1972), 408 U.S. 938, this court refused to consider, on appeal, appellant’s argument that one of the members of a three-judge panel was ineligible to hold office, stating: “The right of a de facto officer to hold office may not be questioned in a collateral proceeding to which he is not a party. Stiess v. State (1921), 103 Ohio St. 33, [41-42] * *

Accordingly, the issue raised in appellants’ complaint would not be reviewable upon an appeal from an adverse judgment rendered in the underlying action.

Moreover, we find that the allegations of the complaint, if proven, would present a claim that appellee Lovinger is “without jurisdiction whatsoever to act, [and in such a case,] the availability or adequacy of a remedy of appeal to prevent the resulting injustice is immaterial to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by a superior court to prevent usurpation of jurisdiction by the inferior court.” State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 326, 329 [59 O.O.2d 387]. See, also, State, ex rel. Rockwell Internatl., v. Ford (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 234, 235 [15 O.O.3d 250].

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing appellants’ complaint and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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