Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCall v. Fleegle

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

August 2, 2013

EUGENE B. MCCALL Petitioner
v.
JUDGE MARK C. FLEEGLE Respondent

For Respondent NO APPEARANCE.

For Petitioner NO APPEARANCE EUGENE B. MCCALL, Pro Se

OPINION

Farmer, J.

{¶1} Petitioner, Eugene McCall, has filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Procedendo" asking this Court to order Respondent, Judge Mark C. Fleegle, to rule on two outstanding motions in his trial court case. The first motion was filed on September 13, 2011 by Appellant in a pro se capacity and the second motion was filed on June 22, 2012 by counsel for Petitioner.

{¶2} The Supreme Court has held that a judge's performance of the requested act makes the complaint in procedendo moot. State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender, 129 Ohio St.3d 496, 496, 954 N.E.2d 114, 115 (Ohio, 2011).

{¶3} Subsequent to the filing of the instant complaint, Respondent ruled on the issue raised in both outstanding motions in the underlying case. In turn, Petitioner has appealed the trial court's decision on these motions to this Court which was assigned Case Number CT 2013-0014. Because Respondent has performed the act requested in the complaint, we dismiss the instant petition as moot.

Farmer, J., Gwin, P.J., and Wise, J., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the petition for writ of procedendo is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.