State ex rel. Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Corrigan

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Corrigan

564 N.E.2d 473, 56 Ohio St. 3d 116, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1729

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 19, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1993

StatusPublished

This text of 564 N.E.2d 473 (State ex rel. Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Corrigan) 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.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Corrigan, 564 N.E.2d 473, 56 Ohio St. 3d 116, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1729 (Ohio 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In the action underlying the present mandamus action, relator previously was represented by attorneys David W. Mellott and Douglas B. Besman. These two attorneys are now employed by Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, the firm representing the intervenors-respondents, the Midwest Defendants.

The underlying action is currently pending in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County where relator has been unsuccessful in seeking to disqualify Benesch, Friedlander from representing the Midwest Defendants in the underlying action and also has been unsuccessful in obtaining a hearing on the matter in that court. Relator now seeks the identical relief in this court by way of mandamus.

“Mandamus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal from an interlocutory order,” here, the overruling of a motion to disqualify counsel. State, ex rel. Daggett, v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 55, 63 O.O. 2d 88, 295 N.E. 2d 659, paragraph three of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Sobczak, v. Skow (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 13, 550 N.E. 2d 455. See, also, Bernbaum v. Silverstein (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 445, 16 O.O. 3d 461, 406 N.E. 2d 532. Cf. Russell v. Mercy Hospital (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 37, 15 OBR 136, 472 N.E. 2d 695. The complaint for a writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed, sua sponte.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Res-nick, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., concurs in judgment only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In the action underlying the present mandamus action, relator previously was represented by attorneys David W. Mellott and Douglas B. Besman. These two attorneys are now employed by Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, the firm representing the intervenors-respondents, the Midwest Defendants.

The underlying action is currently pending in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County where relator has been unsuccessful in seeking to disqualify Benesch, Friedlander from representing the Midwest Defendants in the underlying action and also has been unsuccessful in obtaining a hearing on the matter in that court. Relator now seeks the identical relief in this court by way of mandamus.

“Mandamus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal from an interlocutory order,” here, the overruling of a motion to disqualify counsel. State, ex rel. Daggett, v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 55, 63 O.O. 2d 88, 295 N.E. 2d 659, paragraph three of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Sobczak, v. Skow (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 13, 550 N.E. 2d 455. See, also, Bernbaum v. Silverstein (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 445, 16 O.O. 3d 461, 406 N.E. 2d 532. Cf. Russell v. Mercy Hospital (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 37, 15 OBR 136, 472 N.E. 2d 695. The complaint for a writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed, sua sponte.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Res-nick, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., concurs in judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 N.E.2d 473, 56 Ohio St. 3d 116, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-piper-aircraft-corp-v-corrigan-ohio-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack