State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano
Decision Date | 16 January 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 2012–1253.,2012–1253. |
Citation | 985 N.E.2d 453,135 Ohio St.3d 175 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. CASKEY, Appellant, v. GANO, Judge, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 11–CA–51, 2011-Ohio-6144, 2011 WL 5996082.
Peterson & Peterson, L.L.C., and Robert K. Hendrix, for appellant.
Stephen K. Haller, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, and Elizabeth A. Ellis, Civil Division Chief, for appellee.
[Ohio St.3d 175]{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment denying the request of appellant, Chantil Caskey, for writs of prohibition and mandamus. Caskey sought the writs to prevent appellee, Judge G. Allen Gano, sitting by assignment in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, from proceeding in an adoption case or, in the alternative, to require Judge Gano to permit her to appear as a party in the case.
{¶ 2} “Neither mandamus nor prohibition will issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 12. Unless a relator establishes a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus will not issue, because the [Ohio St.3d 176]relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. See State ex rel. Skyway Invest. Corp. v. Ashtabula Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 130 Ohio St.3d 220, 2011-Ohio-5452, 957 N.E.2d 24, ¶ 10.
{¶ 3} Judge Gano does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the underlying adoption case.
{¶ 4} “Probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings.” State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453, 2011-Ohio-4082, 953 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 21.
{¶ 5} In addition, Caskey's claims are not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ case. State ex rel. Nalls v. Russo, 96 Ohio St.3d 410, 2002-Ohio-4907, 775 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 28 (); State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576, 578, 757 N.E.2d 357 (2001) ( ); State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus, 98 Ohio St.3d 298, 2003-Ohio-861, 784 N.E.2d 99, ¶ 28 ( ); McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 123, ¶ 2 ( ); In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-236, 963 N.E.2d 142 ( ); In re Adoption of Baby Doe, 9th Dist. No. 19279, 1999 WL 241379 (Apr. 14, 1999) ( ).
{¶ 6} Finally, the mere fact that Caskey's attempts thus far to raise these issues on appeal have been unsuccessful, see In re J.T.F., 2d Dist. No. 12–CA–03, 2012-Ohio-2105, 2012 WL 1660664,appeal not accepted,132 Ohio St.3d 1517, 2012-Ohio-4021, 974 N.E.2d 114, does not thereby entitle her to the requested extraordinary relief. See State ex rel. Kingsley v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 130 Ohio St.3d 333, 2011-Ohio-5519, 958 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 22.
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied Caskey's request...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Heyside v. Calabrese
...or prohibition." State ex rel. Durrani v. Ruehlman , 147 Ohio St.3d 478, 2016-Ohio-7740, 67 N.E.3d 769, ¶ 15, citing State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano , 135 Ohio St.3d 175, 2013-Ohio-71, 985 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 2. "[T]o be an adequate remedy at law, the remedy must be ‘complete, beneficial, and speedy......
-
State ex rel. Durrani v. Ruehlman
...appealable order. {¶ 15} In general, appeal is a remedy sufficient to preclude a writ of mandamus or prohibition. State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, 135 Ohio St.3d 175, 2013-Ohio-71, 985 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 2. Appellants may appeal Judge Ruehlman's reassignment entries following the issuance of a fina......
- State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko
-
State ex rel. Vanni v. Mcmonagle
...to decide its applicability. McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 123, ¶ 2;see also State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, 135 Ohio St.3d 175, 2013-Ohio-71, 985 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 5;State ex rel. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St......