Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Eudela v. Rogers

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1984No. 83-269PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

It is axiomatic that a writ of mandamus may issue only where the relator shows (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) a clear legal duty upon respondent to perform the act requested, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28, 29.

The threshold question confronting the court today is whether the court of appeals properly issued the writ of mandamus in light of the existence of an available remedy by way of a declaratory judgment proceeding pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721. R.C.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Heller v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. State ex rel. Butler v. DemisOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State ex rel. Dollison v. ReddyOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  5. State ex rel. McGarvey v. ZeiglerOhio Supreme Court · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. GosserOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State ex rel. Chevalier v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State ex rel. O.M. Scott & Sons Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Eudela v. Ohio Department of Mental Health & Mental RetardationOhio Court of Appeals · 1986

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API