State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano
135 Ohio St. 3d 175
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Caskey filed a mandamus and prohibition petition seeking to stop Judge Gano from proceeding in an adoption case or to allow her to participate.
- The trial judge was sitting by assignment in Greene County Probate Court, Court of Common Pleas.
- The court of appeals denied relief, and Caskey challenged that denial by petition for extraordinary writs.
- The supreme court held mandamus/prohibition are not available where there is an adequate remedy by appeal and no patent lack of jurisdiction.
- Ohio law vests probate courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus/prohibition should issue to halt adopted-jurisdiction proceedings | Caskey seeks writs to stop or limit judge’s proceeding | There is an adequate remedy by appeal; no patent lack of jurisdiction | Relief denied; no jurisdictional defect established |
| Whether the probate court lacks jurisdiction over the adoption proceeding | Not explicitly stated as lack of jurisdiction in the record | Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption | Court did not find patently and unambiguously lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the claims were cognizable in an extraordinary-writ proceeding | Relief should be available to correct perceived errors in the adoption case | Such issues are not cognizable in extraordinary-writs and must be reviewed on appeal | Not cognizable in extraordinary-writs; denied |
| Whether petitioner's prior unsuccessful efforts justify extraordinary relief | Previous attempts should entitle relief in extraordinary writs | Previous attempts do not alter the adequate-remedy requirement | Not entitled to extraordinary relief based on prior unsuccessful attempts |
Key Cases Cited
- Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453 (2011-Ohio-4082) (probate courts’ exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption)
- Nalls v. Russo, 96 Ohio St.3d 410 (2002-Ohio-4907) (prohibition not substitute for appeal for mere errors in judgment)
- Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576 (2001) (appeal of denial of intervention after final judgment is adequate remedy)
- Denton v. Bedinghaus, 98 Ohio St.3d 298 (2003-Ohio-861) (motion to intervene and appeal provides adequate remedy)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012-Ohio-236) (appeal in ordinary course from adoption determination)
- In re J.T.F., 2012-Ohio-2105 (2d Dist. No. 12-CA-03) (appeal not accepted; ordinary-course review available)
- State ex rel. Skyway Invest. Corp. v. Ashtabula Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 130 Ohio St.3d 220 (2011-Ohio-5452) (adequacy of ordinary remedies limits writs)
- State ex rel. Kingsley v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 130 Ohio St.3d 333 (2011- Ohio-5519) (clarifies extraordinary-relief standards)