From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel. Woods, v. Gagliardo

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 2, 1977
49 Ohio St. 2d 196 (Ohio 1977)

Opinion

No. 76-949

Decided March 2, 1977.

Mandamus — Remedy not available, when — Review of interlocutory order of trial court.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

On April 9, 1974, Shirley Caffee filed a complaint in the Juvenile Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County naming Marvin Woods as the father of her illegitimate child. Woods entered a plea of not guilty.

Upon birth of the child, Woods filed a motion for a blood-grouping test, pursuant to R.C. 3111.16, together with a poverty affidavit asserting Woods' financial inability to prepay the costs of the blood test, and requested the court to forego the requirements of its rule for prepayment of costs. The motion was granted in part as to the prayer for a blood-grouping test and denied in part as to the prayer for a waiver of the prepayment of costs.

Upon request of the trial court, Woods' motion was refiled, and, after a hearing, the court concluded that Woods continued to be indigent, but it did not waive the requirement for the prepayment of costs for the blood-grouping test.

Woods then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against respondent, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. The court granted the writ and directed that Woods be given a blood test and the expense thereof "* * * taxed as costs by authority of Walker v. Stokes (1975), 45 Ohio App.2d 275. "

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.

Ms. Carolyn C. McTighe, Mr. Franklin J. Hickman, Mr. Edward R. Stege, Jr., and Ms. Sheila Tew, for appellee.

Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. George J. Sadd, for appellant.


Appellee Woods, in effect, asks the Court of Appeals to reaffirm its decision in Walker v. Stokes, supra, and, thereby, reverse an interlocutory order of the trial court. A proceeding in mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal and it is not a vehicle for review of an interlocutory order of a lower court. State, ex rel. Dargett, v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 55; State, ex rel. Overmeyer, v. Walinski (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 23.

Appellee has an adequate remedy by way of appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeals granting the writ is, therefore, reversed.

Judgment reversed.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel. Woods, v. Gagliardo

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 2, 1977
49 Ohio St. 2d 196 (Ohio 1977)
Case details for

State, ex Rel. Woods, v. Gagliardo

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. WOODS, APPELLEE, v. GAGLIARDO, JUDGE, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 2, 1977

Citations

49 Ohio St. 2d 196 (Ohio 1977)
360 N.E.2d 705

Citing Cases

State v. Collins

State ex rel. Dreamer v. Mason, 115 Ohio St.3d 190, 2007-Ohio-4789, 874 N.E.2d 510; State ex rel. Woods v.…

State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd

Mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, and since an appeal constitutes an adequate remedy at law, this…