Legal Opinion

Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1988No. 88-939PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Treating the pro se pleading as two distinct complaints, we consider, first, the complaint for a writ of procedendo. Such writ will be allowed to order a court of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment in a given case. State, ex rel. Ratliff, v. Marshall (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 101, 102, 59 O.O. 2d 114, 115, 282 N.E. 2d 582, 584. However, complainant does not plead, and it does not appear, that he is a party to any action presently pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Clark County. Therefore, the complaint for writ of procedendo is denied.

Next, we consider the complaint for a writ of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re BursonOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Stahl v. ShoemakerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State ex rel. Ratliff v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1972

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Douglas v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State ex rel. Justice v. McMackinOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. ClineOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Douglas v. MoneyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Beach v. McAninchOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

5 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