State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed dismissal of Mallon Roberts’s petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo seeking to compel a trial-court judge to rule on a jurisdictional motion. The court held that the claims were moot because the judge had already ruled on the motion, and that any alleged error could be addressed through a direct appeal because Roberts had an adequate remedy at law.

Holdings

1. A procedendo claim becomes moot when the court performs the duty the petitioner seeks to compel; because Judge Hatheway ruled on Roberts's motion, dismissal of the procedendo claim was proper.
2. Mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed; because the trial court had ruled on Roberts's motion, mandamus could not lie.
3. Neither mandamus nor procedendo will issue when the petitioner has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; Roberts could address any error in the trial court's ruling through a direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roberts's claim for a writ of procedendo became moot after the trial court ruled on the motion he sought to have decided.
2. Whether a writ of mandamus could issue to compel an act that the trial court had already performed.
3. Whether mandamus or procedendo was available to review the merits of the trial court's ruling when Roberts had an adequate remedy through direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed