HAUGHT v. CITY OF DAYTON

No. 72-598.

34 Ohio St. 2d 32 (1973)

HAUGHT ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided April 18, 1973.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Messrs. Skilken & Kidd and Mr. Ralph A. Skilken, Jr., for appellees.

Mr. James W. Drake, city attorney, Mr. H. Donald Hawkins, Mr. Wm. Patrick McGuinn and Mr. James F. Bauhof, for appellants.


Per Curiam.

Although the Court of Common Pleas dismissed this cause "for the reason that there exists an adequate remedy at law," the record does not indicate the remedy to which that court was alluding. The Court of Appeals assumed that the remedy was an appeal from the amendment of Rule 24 by the Dayton Civil Service Board, under R. C. Chapter 2506, to the Common Pleas Court. On the other hand, appellants contended that the remedy referred to was an appeal...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

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