History
  • No items yet
midpage
62 Ohio St. 3d 110
Ohio
1991
Per Curiam.

Harris purports to seek a writ commanding Judge Donnelly “to proceed with the hearing and * * * determination of this case without further delay * * However, as the court of appeals noted, Harris “does not specify * * * which aspect of the probate court case” has been unduly delayed. Instead, her complaint makes clear that she seeks the writ because she is dissatisfied with the probate court’s choice of a guardian for her sister.

“The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to what that judgment should be.” State, ex rel. Davey, v. Owen (1937), 133 Ohio St. 96, 106, 10 O.O. 102, 106, 12 N.E.2d 144, 149. Since Harris has alleged no delay in judgment, she has stated no claim in procedendo. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Hand v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 13, 1991
Citations: 62 Ohio St. 3d 110; 579 N.E.2d 704; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 2520; No. 91-1157
Docket Number: No. 91-1157
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In