Legal Opinion

Berthelot v. Dezso

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1999No. 99-359PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

Maureen asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing her claims for extraordinary relief in mandamus and prohibition. She claims that Judge Dezso has no discretion to deny her discovery and an evidentiary hearing to redetermine spousal support following the court of appeals’ reversal and remand of the original spousal support award. For the following reasons, Maureen’s assertions lack merit.

Writs of mandamus and prohibition are appropriate to require lower courts to comply with and not proceed contrary to the mandate of a superior court. State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford (1997), 78…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Booth v. BoothOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Levin v. City of Sheffield LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State ex rel. Dehler v. SutulaOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Frazier & Oxley, L.C. v. CummingsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State ex rel. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State ex rel. Dreamer v. MasonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State ex rel. Mason v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State ex rel. Frailey v. WolfeOhio Supreme Court · 2001

17 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