State ex rel. Petway v. Croce - Writ of Procedendo Denied
Summary
The Ohio Court of Appeals denied a writ of procedendo filed by Devon Petway against Judge Christine Croce. The court found the case moot, as the underlying settlement funds had already been released and ADA accommodation concerns were addressed, rendering the requested judicial action unnecessary.
What changed
The Ohio Court of Appeals has denied a writ of procedendo filed by Relator Devon Petway against Respondent Judge Christine Croce. The court determined that the case was moot because the settlement funds at issue had already been released, and the requested actions regarding ADA accommodation concerns had been resolved. Consequently, the court found no legal basis to compel the judge to act, as the duty to proceed had either been fulfilled or rendered unnecessary by subsequent events.
This decision means that the original petition for a writ of procedendo is dismissed. For regulated entities, this case serves as a reminder that procedural remedies like writs of procedendo are unavailable if the underlying issue has been resolved or the court has already taken the necessary action. Compliance officers should note that while this is a judicial administration matter, the underlying dispute involved settlement funds and ADA accommodations, which could have broader implications for how such disputes are managed and resolved in civil litigation.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State ex rel. Petway v. Croce
Ohio Court of Appeals
- Citations: 2026 Ohio 1016
Docket Number: 31742
Syllabus
Procedendo, issue ruling, moot, vain act
Combined Opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Petway v. Croce, 2026-Ohio-1016.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. DEVON
PETWAY
Relator
C.A. No. 31742
v.
JUDGE CHRISTINE CROCE
ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROCEDENDO
Respondent
Dated: March 25, 2026
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Devon Petway, has petitioned this Court for a writ of procedendo, or in the
alternative, a limited mandamus against Respondent, Judge Croce. Ms. Petway asks this Court to
direct Judge Croce to rule on pending motions related to the release of settlement funds and to
resolve ADA accommodation concerns before holding an evidentiary hearing. For the following
reasons, we dismiss the petition.
{¶2} To obtain a writ of procedendo, Ms. Petway must establish that she has a clear legal
right to require Judge Croce to proceed, the judge has a clear legal duty to proceed, and there is no
adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio
St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, ¶ 9. “Procedendo is the appropriate remedy when a court has refused
to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.” Lloyd v. Wiest, 2023-
Ohio-869, ¶ 2 (9th Dist.). It is well-settled that procedendo will not “compel the performance of
2
a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253,
1998-Ohio-541. “This Court may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine that an
action is moot.” Lloyd at ¶ 3.
{¶3} According to the complaint, Ms. Petway entered into a settlement agreement in a
civil case in which she was the plaintiff. Her former attorney then filed a charging lien against a
portion of the settlement. The complaint avers that Judge Croce failed to rule on several motions
Ms. Petway filed regarding the enforcement of the settlement agreement and the release of the
settlement funds. It further alleges that Judge Croce anticipates holding a hearing to take evidence
on the charging lien. According to the complaint, Ms. Petway is a qualified individual with a
disability under the ADA and requires certain accommodations to be able to participate in the
evidentiary hearing. Ms. Petway seeks an order directing Judge Croce to: (1) rule on pending
motions; (2) “resolve and implement reasonable ADA accommodations before conducting any
charging lien evidentiary hearing;” and (3) otherwise grant relief as justice requires.
{¶4} The docket in Ms. Petway’s civil case reflects that, on February 6, 2026, Judge
Croce held an evidentiary hearing on the charging lien filed by Ms. Petway’s former attorney. It
further reflects that, on February 13, 2026, Judge Croce issued a decision. Judge Croce entered
judgment on the charging lien, ordered the settlement funds distributed, and denied all other
pending motions. Finally, the docket reflects that, five days later, the defendant in the civil case
filed a notice of compliance, notifying the court that the settlement funds had been distributed in
accordance with its judgment.
{¶5} As noted, procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already
been performed. Lloyd, 2023-Ohio-869, at ¶ 6 (9th Dist.). An order directing Judge Croce to rule
on pending motions or to address ADA accommodations related to hearing that has already
3
occurred “would require a vain act, and this court will not countenance such an act by issuance of
the extraordinary prerogative writ of procedendo.” State ex rel. Garnett v. Lyons, 44 Ohio St.2d
125, 127 (1975). See also State ex rel. Morenz v. Kerr, 2004-Ohio-6208, ¶ 36 (dismissing
procedendo claim as moot because procedendo will not issue to compel a vain act). Accordingly,
Ms. Petway’s claim is moot.
{¶6} Because Ms. Petway’s claim is moot, her complaint is dismissed. All other
outstanding motions are denied. Costs of this action are taxed to Ms. Petway. The clerk of courts
is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of
entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).
SCOT A. STEVENSON
FOR THE COURT
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DEVON PETWAY, Pro Se, Relator.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Ohio Court of Appeals publishes new changes.