OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Aloi, Appellant, v. Klide, Judge, Appellee. [Cite as State ex rel. Aloi v. Klide (1993), Ohio St.3d .] Mandamus not a substitute for appeal. (No. 93-695 -- Submitted June 15, 1993 -- Decided October 13, 1993.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-9233. Appellant, Tony Aloi, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, seeking to compel appellee, Judge Harry E. Klide, of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, to rule on four outstanding motions in a case in which appellant is a defendant. Three days later, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint sua sponte, holding that appeal was an adequate remedy at law. The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Tony Aloi, pro se. Robert D. Horowitz, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Arthur S. Leb, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam. We are aware of no procedural rule that authorizes a court to dismiss a complaint summarily on a question of law. See State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 605 N.E.2d 378. Nevertheless, upon review of the arguments and exhibits submitted in this court, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. We note that while some issues in the underlying action in appellee's court have been decided, an action for damages remains. Therefore, appellee may yet rule on the appellant's motions, and, if he fails to do so, any legal injury appellant suffers may be addressed on appeal.

Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.