State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio (Slip Opinion), 174 N.E.3d 744

On May 2–3, 2019, Eastlake/Lake Humane Society seized 97 animals from the Animal Rescue Center; a Willoughby Municipal Court magistrate found probable cause for seizure and ordered a $29,100 deposit for one month with 30‑day renewals.
Bechtel appealed the magistrate’s probable‑cause determination to the Eleventh District, which dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.
Bechtel moved in the trial court for a final judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision; Judge Marisa Cornachio denied the motion.
Relators filed an original action for a writ of procedendo in the Ohio Supreme Court to compel Judge Cornachio to enter a final judgment; the court granted an alternative writ on September 23, 2020.
On October 12, 2020 Judge Cornachio issued a judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision and advising of appellate rights; the Supreme Court held the procedendo claim moot and denied the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Cornachio had a clear legal duty to enter a final judgment adopting the magistrate’s R.C. 959.132(E)(1) probable‑cause determination	Bechtel: Cornachio refused to enter the required final judgment, so procedendo should compel entry	Cornachio: She ultimately issued a judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision	Mootness — procedendo denied because the judge issued the requested judgment entry
Whether the case is excepted from mootness as "capable of repetition yet evading review"	Relators: The issue is too short and likely to recur, so the exception applies	Cornachio: Relators did not prove either prong; issuance of the judgment entry prevented evasion	Exception not met; case is moot
Whether procedendo is a proper vehicle to challenge the finality of the judgment entry	Relators: The October 12 entry lacks elements of a final, appealable order, so relief remains appropriate	Cornachio: Procedendo only compels issuance of a ruling; it is not the vehicle to test finality	Procedendo cannot be used to test finality; it only compels some ruling

State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm., 156 Ohio St.3d 251 (2019) (defines writ of procedendo and its purpose)
State ex rel. O’Malley v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 548 (2019) (procedendo may compel a dilatory court to proceed)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (procedendo does not specify the content of the judgment, only that a judgment be issued)
State ex rel. White v. Woods, 156 Ohio St.3d 562 (2019) (procedendo standard: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 159 Ohio St.3d 457 (2020) (procedendo claim moot when the duty sought to be compelled has been performed)
State ex rel. Hibbler v. O’Neill, 159 Ohio St.3d 566 (2020) (same: issuance of requested entry renders procedendo claim moot)
State ex rel. Williams v. Croce, 153 Ohio St.3d 348 (2018) (procedendo compels issuance of "some ruling")
State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229 (2000) (explains the two‑prong test for the capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review exception)