Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1996No. 96-1292PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Per curiam

S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) provides that “[a]fter the time for filing an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court will either dismiss the case or issue an alternative or a peremptory writ, if a writ has not already been issued.”

In order to be entitled to a writ of procedendo, a relator must establish a clear legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Levin v. City of Sheffield LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Dehler v. SutulaOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. In Re John Paul White, Debtor, John Paul White v. Patricia Ann WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Hansen v. ReedOhio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Grove v. NadelOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Weiss v. HooverOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth District Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. In re DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State ex rel. Grove v. NadelOhio Supreme Court · 1998

84 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