Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 30, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

84 Ohio St. 3d 252; 703 N.E.2d 304

Cases that cite this one

81 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2020)
State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State ex rel. Ramirez v. Cuyahoga Cty. Domestic Relations Court (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State ex rel. Welch v. Aveni (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Fleagane v. Vavra (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Johnson v. D'Apolito (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Wilson (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Javitch Block, L.L.C. v. Shaughnessy (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State ex rel. Mobley v. O'Donnell (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State v. DeVaughns (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Hines (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State ex rel. Lowe v. Berens (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State ex rel. Haley v. Davis (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
Phillips v. Sweeney (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh (Ohio 2014)
State ex rel. Caldwell v. Henson (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Henderson v. Clerk of Courts (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Young v. Gall (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Pearson v. Branstool (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Reynolds v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State ex rel. Dubose v. Evans (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Patel v. Crawford (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

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.

Grove asserts that the court of appeals erred in granting Judge Nadel’s second motion to dismiss because it was contrary to this court’s mandate and his trial court transmitted the wrong transcript in his appeal of right. For the following reasons, however, Grove’s claims lack merit.

First, the court correctly dismissed Grove’s procedendo action on remand from this court because Judge Nadel had already performed the requested act, ie., he journalized his January 1997 decision denying Grove’s motion for a copy of his transcript. Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 71, 72, 552 N.E.2d 906, 908. The court of appeals appropriately took judicial notice that Grove’s procedendo action was moot based on the journalized entry submitted by Judge Nadel in his second motion to dismiss. See State ex rel. Konoff v. Shafer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 294, 295, 685 N.E.2d 1248, 1249.

Second, Grove’s claim that Judge Nadel erred in denying his motion for a copy of his trial transcript should be raised in an appeal from that journalized entry rather than in procedendo. Procedendo will not issue when the relator has an adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65, 671 N.E.2d 24, 26; State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 164, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1294.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

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.