State ex rel. Buoscio v. Lisotto, Judge
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Buoscio v. Lisotto, Judge, 2001-Ohio3337.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO EX REL. SAMUEL L. BUOSCIO, PETITIONER, - VS JUDGE ROBERT LISOTTO, MAHONING COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 00 CA 187 OPINION AND JOURNAL ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition for Writ of Mandamus. JUDGMENT: Petition Dismissed. APPEARANCES: For Petitioner: For Respondent: JUDGES: Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Samuel L. Buoscio, Pro Se P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 Attorney Paul Gains Prosecuting Attorney Attorney Linette Baringer Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 120 Market Street Youngstown, Ohio 44503 - 2 Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Joseph E. O'Neill, Retired, Seventh District Court of Appeals Dated: July 25, 2001 PER CURIAM: {¶1} On August 23, 2000, pro se Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking an order to compel Respondent to issue a ruling on Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment filed in Common Pleas Case No. 98CV2558. Attached to the Petition is a copy of the docket sheet for the above case, noting that a Motion for Summary Judgment was filed therein on April 6, 1999, with a reply filed on May 11, 1999. The docket further reflects that Petitioner filed a Motion for Default Judgment in that case on July 27, 1999. {¶2} On September 29, 2000, this court put on an order granting Respondent otherwise plead. twenty-eight days to file an Answer or Respondent thereafter requested several leaves to plead in response to the Petition. {¶3} On April 4, 2000, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss this Petition as moot. Respondent granted leave as of that date to file a pleading in response to the Petition. Motion is a certified copy of a judgment Attached to the entry filed by Respondent in Case No. 98CV2558, which order grants defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in that case. Respondent moots the underlying Petition. points out that the appropriate procedendo, not mandamus. action Such action by Respondent further to file is one in State ex rel. Harrell v. Court of Common Pleas (May 13, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 76098, unreported. Moreover, it is established law that mootness is a basis upon which to dismiss a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. rel. Konoff v. Shafer (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 294. See State ex - 3 {¶4} In this case, the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant in the subject case is tantamount to the trial court overruling Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. There now exists an adequate remedy at law to challenge such judgment. {¶5} Petition for Writ of Mandamus is dismissed as moot. Costs taxed against Petitioner. Final order. Clerk to serve a copy of this opinion and journal entry on the parties as provided by the civil rules. Vukovich, J., concurs. Waite, J., concurs. O Neill, J., concurs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
