State ex rel. Add Venture, Inc. v. Gillie

• Decision Date: 14 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-1335,79-1335
• Citation: 62 Ohio St.2d 164,404 N.E.2d 151,16 O.O.3d 198
• Parties: , 16 O.O.3d 198 The STATE ex rel. ADD VENTURE, INC., et al., v. GILLIE, Judge, et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 164

62 Ohio St.2d 164

404 N.E.2d 151, 16 O.O.3d 198

The STATE ex rel. ADD VENTURE, INC., et al., v.GILLIE, Judge, et al.

No. 79-1335.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

May 14, 1980.

In Redman et al. v. Zoo Amusement Park, Inc., et al., case No. 79CV-08-4145, Judge William T. Gillie of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, respondent herein, issued a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants therein (relators herein) from carrying out the terms of certain contracts conditioned upon the posting of a $1,500 bond.

Relators seek through this action in mandamus to have this court(1) compel respondent to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, (2) vacate the required bond and (3) vacate the preliminary injunction.

Jones, Campbell & Hadden and E. Bruce Hadden, Worthington, for relators Add Venture, Inc., Zoo Amusement Park, Inc., and Donald and Joyce Mains.

John A. Yaklevich, Columbus, for relatorPatrick J. Mollica.

Isaac, Graham & Nester and Sole M. Isaac, Columbus, for respondentE. C. Redman.

George C. Smith, Pros.Atty. and James R. Kirk, Columbus, for respondent judge.

PER CURIAM.

Relators assert that Civ.R. 52 gives them the right to demand, and the court the duty to state, separate findings of fact and conclusions of law in issuing a preliminary injunction.Relators rely in part upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 and federal cases decided thereunder.Such reliance is misplaced.

Civ.R. 52 by its terms concerns "judgments."A preliminary injunction is not a judgment.Moreover, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 contains the following language: "* * * (I)n granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action."Civ.R. 52 has no language parallel to the federal rule.Also, Civ.R. 52 further provides that "(f)indings of fact and conclusions of law required by this rule * * * are unnecessary upon all other motions * * *."

Relators also complain that the judge's preliminary injunction did not comply with Civ.R. 65(D), requiring that "(e)very order granting an injunction * * * shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained."

Any alleged shortcomings of the judge's order under Civ.R. 65(D) were corrected by the court's later "Decision on Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Decision on Preliminary Injunction and Upon the Order Setting Bond," which stated that, while the court believed that its original ruling was sufficient, it had no objection " * * * to providing an elaborated statement should it prove helpful to counsel * * *."This decision is comprehensive and thorough.

Further, this court has held that:

"An order of the court of common pleas overruling a motion to vacate a temporary injunction in a suit * * * is neither a judgment nor a final order (seeR.C....