State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. Walinski
This text of 222 N.E.2d 312 (State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. Walinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. In this action, relator seeks an order compelling the respondent judge to enter summary judgment in his behalf.
Relator, as owner and publisher of the Toledo Monitor, was joined as a defendant with the Monitor in an action for libel.
Relator filed a motion for summary judgment on his own behalf. After a hearing thereon, respondent trial judge denied the motion for summary judgment. He now contends that the judge had a mandatory duty to enter summary judgment in his favor.
Relator contends that he has no appeal from the denial of the summary judgment, and that he will be irreparably injured because he will have to come to Toledo from New York for the trial in the libel action.
An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not a final appealable order. See Priester v. State Foundry Co., 172 Ohio St. 28. Such order is similar to the overruling of a demurrer, which is not a final appealable order. Schindler v. Standard Oil Co., 165 Ohio St. 76.
[24]*24Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or create an appeal from an order which is not a final order, which relator seeks to do in this action. 35 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 377, Mandamus, Section 100.
Writ denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
222 N.E.2d 312, 8 Ohio St. 2d 23, 37 Ohio Op. 2d 358, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-overmeyer-v-walinski-ohio-1966.