State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St. 3d 220

Davet sought prohibition and mandamus to halt orders in a foreclosure action by Sutula, Judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
Davet originally filed the action in the court of appeals, not in the trial court.
The court of appeals denied relief and later Davet sought reconsideration and en banc review, as well as a conflict-certification request.
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal and denied reconsideration, holding App.R. 26(A) inapplicable to original actions filed in a court of appeals.
The court noted Davet had an adequate ordinary remedy by appeal, rendering original-action relief inappropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is App.R. 26 reconsideration applicable to original actions filed in a court of appeals?	Davet argues reconsideration should apply.	Sutula contends it does not apply to original actions.	Reconsideration inapplicable to original actions.
Was en banc reconsideration or conflict certification warranted for a non dispositive issue?	Davet seeks en banc review and conflict certification.	Defendant opposes since not dispositive or required for uniform decisions.	En banc review and conflict certification denied as to non dispositive issue.
Did the court of appeals have jurisdiction to decide the merits or was the appeal untimely?	Davet challenges dismissal on the merits.	Sutula asserts dismissal on jurisdiction/standing grounds; the appeal may be timely for some issues.	Merits appeal untimely; portion of appeal dismissed.

State ex rel. Washington v. Crush, 106 Ohio St.3d 60 (2005-Ohio-3675) (original-action remedy limits reconsideration applicability)
State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117 Ohio St.3d 1 (2007-Ohio-6754) (jurisdictional standard for writs in relation to standing)