Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1999No. 99-598PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Forsyth asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. For the reasons that follow, Forsyth’s claims are meritless.

Although mandamus and procedendo will issue in cases of a court’s undue delay in entering judgment, State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 656 N.E.2d 332, 333, it is evident here that even assuming no express ruling on the pretrial motion, the trial court overruled Forsyth’s motion to have depositions filed when it entered its divorce decree. See State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469, 692 N.E.2d 198,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Dehler v. SutulaOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State ex rel. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Ohio Bureau of Employment ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Cotton v. GheeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Eads v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Fontanella v. KontosOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Howard v. SporeOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit County CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. RahmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State ex rel. McGrath v. CalabreseOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API