State ex rel. Belle Tire Distribs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentDeWine, J.
{¶ 33} I dissent because this is not a case in which a writ of mandamus is appropriate. The Industrial Commission issued a decision that spoke directly to whether Judy Melroy could participate in the workers' compensation fund. Under our precedent, Belle Tire Distributors, Inc., could challenge that decision by way of an appeal under R.C. 4123.512. Because Belle Tire has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the mandamus claim. We should affirm that decision.
An adequate remedy
{¶ 34} The question whether a relator has an adequate remedy at law…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Afrates v. City of LorainOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Saunders v. Metal Container Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Ohio Bureau of Employment ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Kerns v. SimmersOhio Supreme Court · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.