Case Name: [The State, ex rel.] Hand, Appellant, v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1991-11-13
Citations: 62 Ohio St. 3d 110
Docket Number: No. 91-1157
Parties: [The State, ex rel.] Hand, Appellant, v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 62
Pages: 110–110

Head Matter:
[The State, ex rel.] Hand, Appellant, v. Probate Court of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State, ex rel. Hand, v. Cuyahoga Cty. Probate Court (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 110.]
(No. 91-1157
Submitted September 17, 1991
Decided November 13, 1991.)
Ruby H. Harris, pro se.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, and Colleen C. Cooney, for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Harris purports to seek a writ commanding Judge Donnelly "to proceed with the hearing and determination of this case without further delay However, as the court of appeals noted, Harris "does not specify which aspect of the probate court case" has been unduly delayed. Instead, her complaint makes clear that she seeks the writ because she is dissatisfied with the probate court's choice of a guardian for her sister.
"The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to what that judgment should be." State, ex rel. Davey, v. Owen (1937), 133 Ohio St. 96, 106, 10 O.O. 102, 106, 12 N.E.2d 144, 149. Since Harris has alleged no delay in judgment, she has stated no claim in procedendo. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.