Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-09-2021
Case Style:
State of Ohio, ex rel. Kevin Ball v. Judge Tygh M. Tone
Case Number: L-21-1054
Judge: Christine Mayle
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: Gerhard R. Gross, Assistant Erie County Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Toledo, Ohio - Criminal defense attorney represented Kevin Ball with filing a petition for a writ of procedendo.
To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, relator must demonstrate “a clear
legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the court to
proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” State
ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7.
{¶ 3} The Supreme Court of Ohio has established that a court may take notice of
a docket that is publicly available via the internet. State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115
Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Cincinnati
Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126,
2002-Ohio-7041, 781 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 8 (“An event that causes a case to become moot may
be proved by extrinsic evidence outside the record”). Our review of the electronic docket
maintained by the Erie County Court of Common Pleas discloses that, on April 2, 2021,
Judge Tone denied relator’s motion. Accordingly, we find that relator’s petition for writ
of procedendo is moot. “A writ will not lie when the judge in the underlying case has
already completed the judicial act or duty which is the subject matter of the petition.”
State ex rel. Noble v. Vettel, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2004-A-079, 2005-Ohio-692, ¶ 5.
Outcome: We sua sponte dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of procedendo. All pending motions are denied as moot. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: