State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The court of appeals correctly held that original’actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ of procedendo, must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion. Civ.R. 3(A) (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court * * *.”); Loc.App.R. 8(B)(1) of the Court of Appeals .for the Eighth Appellate District (“These original actions shall be instituted by the filing of a verified complaint * * *.”); cf. Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081, where we affirmed the dismissal of a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Myles v. WyattOhio Supreme Court · 1991
3Cited by17 opinions
- State ex rel. Brantley v. GheeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Fipps v. DayOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
- State Ex Rel. Foster v. Buchanan, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2006)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Cotton v. SheldonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Lakeland Bolt Nut Co. v. Grdina, 89955 (6-13-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.