State ex rel. Wargo v. Price
| Decision Date | 25 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-144,78-144 |
| Citation | 56 Ohio St.2d 65,10 O.O.3d 116,381 N.E.2d 943 |
| Parties | , 10 O.O.3d 116 The STATE ex rel. WARGO et al., Appellants, v. PRICE, Judge, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This action stems from a libel action pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. The trial court, hearing the matter on remand from the Court of Appeals, permitted the defendant to amend her answer. Appellants herein, who are plaintiffs in the libel action, then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals naming as respondents the trial judge, the clerk of courts and the defendant in the libel action, seeking a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the trial judge to vacate his order permitting amendment of the answer, to enter an order striking the amended answer from the files to "take judicial notice of the fact that defendant's subject libel is actionable Per se and instruct the jury accordingly at the commencement of the retrial herein," and "to assure * * * a fair, unbiased jury determination of such cause in accordance with law"; and directing the clerk of courts to then journalize such orders of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint on the basis that relators had a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal.
The cause is now before this court on appeal as a matter of right.
Kelley, McCann & Livingstone and Aubrey B. Willacy, Cleveland, for appellants.
Stephan M. Gabalac, Pros. Atty. and Steven J. Schwartz, Akron, for appellees Judge Theodore Price and James McCarthy.
Kenneth Boukis and James J. Easly, Cleveland, for appellee Ritenour.
Amendment of pleadings by leave of the court, Civ.R. 15(A), is a matter of judicial discretion, subject to review on appeal. Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. State ex rel. Marshall v. Keller (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 203, 205, 239 N.E.2d 85.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Mayne
...judge's decision was an abuse of discretion, not whether it was the same decision we might have made. State, ex rel. Wargo v. Price (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 65, 10 O.O.3d 116, 381 N.E.2d 943. Not only is our role limited to review, but the review itself has narrow limits: "* * * We have repeat......
-
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. the Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.
... ... to state a claim upon which relief can be wanted (Civ.R ... 12(B)(6)), it ... findings are never required. See State ex rel. Drake v ... Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d ... State ex rel. Wargo v. Price (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d ... 65, 66. The moving party has no ... ...
-
Han v. Univ. of Dayton
...Products, Inc. v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120, 122, 573 N.E.2d 622 (1991), citing State ex rel. Wargo v. Price, 56 Ohio St.2d 65, 381 N.E.2d 943 (1978). This appellate review has narrow limits. Id. at 122, 573 N.E.2d 622. {¶ 58} Justice does not require the granti......
-
Wille v. Hunkar Lab., Inc.
...(C.A.6, 1996), 97 F.3d 876, 885. 20. See Penny v. UPS (C.A.6, 1997), 128 F.3d 408, 417. 21. State ex rel. Wargo v. Price (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 65, 66, 10 O.O.3d 116, 116, 381 N.E.2d 943, 943. 22. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 OBR 481, 482, 450 N.E.2d 1140, 1142. 23......