Title: State ex rel. Aloi v. Klide

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Aloi, Appellant, v. Klide, Judge, Appellee.                    
[Cite as State ex rel. Aloi v. Klide (1993),       Ohio                          
St.3d      .]                                                                    
Mandamus not a substitute for appeal.                                            
     (No. 93-695 -- Submitted June 15, 1993 -- Decided                           
October 13, 1993.)                                                               
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No.                      
CA-9233.                                                                         
     Appellant, Tony Aloi, filed a complaint for a writ of                       
mandamus in the court of appeals, seeking to compel appellee,                    
Judge Harry E. Klide, of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark                      
County, to rule on four outstanding motions in a case in which                   
appellant is a defendant.  Three days later, the court of                        
appeals dismissed the complaint sua sponte, holding that appeal                  
was an adequate remedy at law.                                                   
     The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.                  
                                                                                 
     Tony Aloi, pro se.                                                          
     Robert D. Horowitz, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and                  
Arthur S. Leb, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.                     
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We are aware of no procedural rule that                        
authorizes a court to dismiss a complaint summarily on a                         
question of law.  See State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd.                  
of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 605 N.E.2d 378.                            
Nevertheless, upon review of the arguments and exhibits                          
submitted in this court, we affirm the judgment of the court of                  
appeals.                                                                         
     We note that while some issues in the underlying action in                  
appellee's court have been decided, an action for damages                        
remains.  Therefore, appellee may yet rule on the appellant's                    
motions, and, if he fails to do so, any legal injury appellant                   
suffers may be addressed on appeal.                                              
                                                                                 
                                       Judgment affirmed.                        
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.