State ex rel. Tillimon v. Weiher

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Tillimon v. Weiher

605 N.E.2d 35, 65 Ohio St. 3d 468

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1835

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 605 N.E.2d 35 (State ex rel. Tillimon v. Weiher) 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. Tillimon v. Weiher, 605 N.E.2d 35, 65 Ohio St. 3d 468 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

According to O’Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753, syllabus:

“In order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted * * *, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. (Conley v. Gibson [1957], 355 U.S. 41 [78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80], followed).”

We hold that Tillimon can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief and affirm the dismissal of the complaint.

First, Tillimon demands that we order Weiher and his successors to promptly decide all cases in Toledo Municipal Court, including the underlying case. We presume the regularity of trial court proceedings. Middleburg Hts. v. Brown (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 66, 68, 24 OBR 215, 217, 493 N.E.2d 547, 549. [470]*470Further, we will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the observance of laws generally. State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook (1946), 146 Ohio St. 348, 32 O.O. 419, 66 N.E.2d 207, paragraph seven of the syllabus; State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 581, 589, 50 O.O. 465, 469, 113 N.E.2d 14, 19. Accordingly, we do not, in a general manner, order a court to render its decisions promptly in a mandamus action.

Second, Tillimon demands that we direct Weiher to decide the case in his favor. However, mandamus “ * * * cannot control judicial discretion.” R.C. 2731.03; State ex rel. De Ville Photography, Inc. v. McCarroll (1958), 167 Ohio St. 210, 4 O.O.2d 268, 147 N.E.2d 254. Consequently, we do not direct a judge to exercise his discretion in a certain manner via mandamus.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

According to O’Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753, syllabus:

“In order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted * * *, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. (Conley v. Gibson [1957], 355 U.S. 41 [78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80], followed).”

We hold that Tillimon can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief and affirm the dismissal of the complaint.

First, Tillimon demands that we order Weiher and his successors to promptly decide all cases in Toledo Municipal Court, including the underlying case. We presume the regularity of trial court proceedings. Middleburg Hts. v. Brown (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 66, 68, 24 OBR 215, 217, 493 N.E.2d 547, 549. [470]*470Further, we will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the observance of laws generally. State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook (1946), 146 Ohio St. 348, 32 O.O. 419, 66 N.E.2d 207, paragraph seven of the syllabus; State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 581, 589, 50 O.O. 465, 469, 113 N.E.2d 14, 19. Accordingly, we do not, in a general manner, order a court to render its decisions promptly in a mandamus action.

Second, Tillimon demands that we direct Weiher to decide the case in his favor. However, mandamus “ * * * cannot control judicial discretion.” R.C. 2731.03; State ex rel. De Ville Photography, Inc. v. McCarroll (1958), 167 Ohio St. 210, 4 O.O.2d 268, 147 N.E.2d 254. Consequently, we do not direct a judge to exercise his discretion in a certain manner via mandamus.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Resnick, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 N.E.2d 35, 65 Ohio St. 3d 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-tillimon-v-weiher-ohio-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack