Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula

State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
81 Ohio St. 3d 110; 689 N.E.2d 564; 1998 Ohio LEXIS 71

State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The court of appeals correctly held that original’actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ of procedendo, must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion. Civ.R. 3(A) (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court * * *.”); Loc.App.R. 8(B)(1) of the Court of Appeals .for the Eighth Appellate District (“These original actions shall be instituted by the filing of a verified complaint * * *.”); cf. Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081, where we affirmed the dismissal of a motion for a writ of mandamus.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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