STATE EX REL. DANFORD v. KARL, MAYOR

No. 40315.

9 Ohio St. 2d 79 (1967)

THE STATE, EX REL. DANFORD, APPELLANT, v. KARL, MAYOR, ET AL., APPELLEES.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided February 8, 1967.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Jas. Slater Gibson, for appellant.

Mr. Robert Dorrell and Messrs. Reams, Bretherton & Neipp, for appellees.


Per Curiam.

Relator has a plain and adequate remedy by way of mandatory injunction which he could have sought in the Court of Common Pleas.

A writ of mandamus must not be issued where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Central Service Station, Inc., v. Masheter, Dir. of Hwys., 7 Ohio St.2d 1; State, ex rel. Sibarco Corp., v. City of Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

TAFT, C. J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

HERBERT, J., dissenting. The question posed in this case is identical to that posed in State, ex rel. Durek, v. Masheter, Dir. of Hwys., 9 Ohio St.2d 76: Does the availability of mandatory injunction or mandamus in the Court of Common Pleas preclude a Court of Appeals from hearing an original action in mandamus on the merits? The answer to that must be in the negative for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Durek.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases