State ex rel. Robinson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State ex rel. Robinson, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 2 Appellee. 3 [Cite as State ex rel. Robinson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas 4 (1996), ____Ohio St.3d __.] 5 Mandamus to compel common pleas court to vacate its order 6 appointing a guardian ad litem for relator -- Writ denied where 7 adequate remedy at law exists. 8 (No. 95-2110 -- Submitted February 20, 1996-- Decided April 17, 9 1996.) 10 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 69476. 11 Lewis G. Robinson appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals 12 for Cuyahoga County dismissing his August 25, 1995 complaint for a writ 13 of mandamus. The complaint sought to require the Cuyahoga County Court 14 of Common Pleas to vacate its order of January 26, 1990 in which it 15 appointed a guardian ad litem for Robinson. 16 In dismissing Robinson s complaint, the court of appeals found that 17 since a court of common pleas has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad 18 litem, a writ of mandamus will not lie to compel vacation of the 1 appointment order and the appropriate remedy for Robinson was by an 2 appeal. 3 The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 4 _____________________ 5 Lewis G. Robinson, pro se. 6 Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 7 Gregory B. Rowinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 8 ___________________ 9 Per Curiam. We agree with the court of appeals. Since Sturges v. 10 Longworth (1853), 1 Ohio St. 544, we have approved of a court of common 11 pleas appointing a guardian ad litem, literally a guardian for the case, who 12 has no duties prior to the institution of a suit or after its termination but 13 whose sole duty is to defend in a particular cause. Civ.R. 17(B) authorizes a 14 court, as incident to its power to try a case, to order the appointment of a 15 guardian ad litem. Robinson s remedy was appeal from that order. 16 Mandamus will not issue where, as here, there was an adequate remedy at 17 law. 18 The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed. 2 1 2 3 4 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., not participating. 3
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.
