State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Collins (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
- Fipps v. Day (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
- Beverly v. Clancy (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- State v. Hall (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
- Warren v. Ohio (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
- State ex rel. Allen v. Sutula (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- Walter v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
- State v. Floyd, 89480 (5-17-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Lakeland Bolt Nut Co. v. Grdina, 89955 (6-13-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- State Ex Rel. Foster v. Buchanan, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
- State Ex Rel. Brown v. Court Com. Pleas, Unpublished Decision (1-14-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (Ohio 1998)
- State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (Ohio 1998)
- Rucker v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
- Cotton v. Sheldon (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
- Clark v. State, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.