State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula

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

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
The State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, Judge
Cited By
17 cases
Status
Published