Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Martinelli v. Corrigan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1994No. 93-2002PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant contends that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish (1) that he/she has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the act, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 441, 613 N.E.2d 232, 233-234. Generally, Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions attack the sufficiency of the complaint and may not be used to summarily review…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Willis v. SheboyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Associated Estates Corp. v. FellowsOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. State ex rel. Manson v. MorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Konigsberg v. Lamports Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State ex rel. Hillyer v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Luna v. HuffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Schiavoni v. Steel City CorporationOhio Court of Appeals · 1999

6 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