Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026“When a relator seeks to compel the issuance of a judgment entry through a writ of procedendo and the judge issues the entry, the procedendo claim is moot.” Id. 2025Bechtel at ¶ 8-9 (“When a relator seeks to compel the issuance of a judgment entry through a writ of procedendo and the judge issues the entry, the procedendo claim is moot.”). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Hibbler v. O'Neill (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022Hibbler v. O’Neill, 159 Ohio St.3d 566 , 2020-Ohio-1070 , 152 N.E.3d 265, ¶ 8 . {¶6} Irrespective of whether the respondents were legally required to issue a decision, the magistrate has issued the decision rendering the complaint for procedendo moot. 2022Hibbler v. O’Neill, 159 Ohio St.3d 566 , 2020-Ohio-1070 , 152 N.E.3d 265, ¶ 8 . {¶6} Irrespective of whether the respondents were legally required to issue a decision, the magistrate has issued the decision rendering the complaint for procedendo moot. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Verbanik v. Bernard, 2006-T-0080 (4-16-2007)
green
1 sentence2014Trumbull No. 2006-T-0080, 2007-Ohio-1786, ¶8 . {¶7} Even though Verbanik involved a claim for a writ of mandamus, this court has followed the identical analysis in relation to a procedendo claim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy
neutral
1 sentence2008Howard v. Doneghy , 102 Ohio St.3d 355 , 2004-Ohio-3207 , at ¶ 6 , quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pinson v. Triplett
green
2 sentences2007Thus, any judgment vacating that order was also not a final, appealable order”); Pinson v. Triplett (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 46 , 9 OBR 49, 458 N.E.2d 461 (“Because [a default judgment setting a hearing on damages] is not a final appealable order * * *, the order declining to vacate it cannot be a final appealable order”). {¶ 49} Finally, Judge Davis’s February 22, 2006 entry also does not support appellants’ contention that an adequate remedy by way of appeal barred the board’s procedendo claim. 2007Thus, any judgment vacating that order was also not a final, appealable order”); Pinson v. Triplett (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 46 , 9 OBR 49, 458 N.E.2d 461 (“Because [a default judgment setting a hearing on damages] is not a final appealable order * * *, the order declining to vacate it cannot be a final appealable order”). {¶ 49} Finally, Judge Davis’s February 22, 2006 entry also does not support appellants’ contention that an adequate remedy by way of appeal barred the board’s procedendo claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |