History
  • No items yet
midpage
State ex rel. Cochran v. Quillin
20 Ohio St. 2d 6
Ohio
1969
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

This is an action in procedendo originating in this court, by which relator seeks to compel the trial court to proceed in three separate actions filed therein by relator on his own behalf. The petition and answer show that one of these actions is still in the pleading stage: that the second is pending on a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants, the ruling on which has been delayed by petitioner’s own request; and that the third is at issue but petitioner has not complied with the court rule requiring a request that the case be set for trial.

Procedendo is an extraordinary remedy. State, ex rel. General Accident Group, v. Cramer, 7 Ohio St. 2d 83. It does not lie to control or interfere with ordinary court procedure or process. The actions to which the present petition is directed are all proceeding according to normal court procedure.

Therefore the writ of procedendo is denied.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan and Corrigan, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Cochran v. Quillin
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 8, 1969
Citation: 20 Ohio St. 2d 6
Docket Number: No. 69-320
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.