State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler
Decision Date | 16 October 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 2002-0729.,2002-0729. |
Citation | 97 Ohio St.3d 78,2002 Ohio 5315,776 N.E.2d 101 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. SCRUGGS, Appellant, v. SADLER, Judge, Appellee, et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Leo E. Scruggs, pro se.
{¶ 1} In April 2001, appellant, Leo E. Scruggs, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. In his complaint, as subsequently amended, Scruggs requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lisa L. Sadler, and Franklin County Municipal Court Judge Michael T. Brandt to comply with Crim.R. 41(D) by providing a copy of an inventory of items taken from Scruggs's premises during execution of a search warrant or to enter a finding that such an inventory does not exist. Judge Sadler filed a motion to dismiss, and Judge Brandt filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
{¶ 2} On March 19, 2002, the court of appeals granted Judge Sadler's motion to dismiss her as a respondent, denied Judge Brandt's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and returned the cause to the court magistrate for further proceedings. In its journal entry, the court of appeals did not make an express determination of no just reason for delay.
{¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon Scruggs's appeal from the March 19, 2002 order. We subsequently ordered that this appeal would proceed as an appeal as of right. State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 95 Ohio St.3d 1445, 2002-Ohio-2201, 767 N.E.2d 732.
{¶ 4} Under Section 2(B)(2)(a)(i), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, cases originating in courts of appeals may be appealed to this court as a matter of right. R.C. 2505.03, however, limits the appellate jurisdiction of courts, including the Supreme Court, to the review of final orders, judgments, or decrees. This jurisdictional issue cannot be waived and may be raised by this court sua sponte. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 661 N.E.2d 728; see, also, State ex rel. Bond v. Velotta Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 418, 419, 746 N.E.2d 1071.
{¶ 5} An order of a court is a final appealable order only if the requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B), are met. Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 541 N.E.2d 64, syllabus. "Civ.R. 54(B) applies in determining the appealability to the Supreme Court of orders in original actions, such as mandamus, entered by a court of appeals." Wright, 75 Ohio St.3d at 85, 661 N.E.2d 728.
{¶ 6} Civ.R. 54(B) requires that a court make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay in order to make appealable an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights of fewer than all the parties:
{¶ 7} ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Beavers v. Knapp
... ... It is established law in this state that one may obtain punitive damages for personal injury or property loss ... employee's actions are outside the scope of employment, see State ex rel. Riley Constr. Co. v. E. Liverpool City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1967), ... 889 N.E.2d 206 ... Scruggs v. Sadler, 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 5-7 ... ...
-
Leasure v. Adena Local Sch. Dist.
...that appellate court should have sua sponte dismissed appeal due to lack of final, appealable order). See, also, State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 4 (stating that “jurisdictional issue cannot be waived and may be raised by [supreme] court s......
-
Fahncke v. Fahncke
...are met.’ " CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski , 139 Ohio St.3d 299, 2014-Ohio-1984, 11 N.E.3d 1140, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler , 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 5.When determining whether a judgment or order is final and appealable, an appellate court en......
-
Fries v. Greg G. Wright & Sons, LLC
...a final appealable order only if the requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and, if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B), are met." State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler , 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 5. The threshold requirement, therefore, is that the order satisfies the criteria of R.C. ......