Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Apple v. Pence

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1941No. 28148PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

In coming to a conclusion the court below considered five stated questions. It will be necessary here to examine only one of these questions, viz.: “3. When a court is asked to exercise the extraordinary power of mandamus, is it limited to a consideration of the facts and conditions as they existed at the time the proceeding was initiated, or must it take into consideration the facts and conditions existing at the time it determines whether or not a peremptory writ should issue?” The Court of Appeals held: “Plaintiff’s rights must be determined as of February 11, 1939, and hence the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Northern Pacific Railroad v. Washington Territory Ex Rel. DustinSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Sullivan v. Secretary of the CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  3. Durbin v. Barber & BarneyOhio Supreme Court · 1846
  4. People ex rel. Tilden v. MassieonIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Trumbull County Board of Education v. State Ex Rel. Van WyeOhio Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Portage Lakes Edn. Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State Ex Rel. Stanley v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Hagerman v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1947
  4. State Ex Rel. Stoer v. RaschigOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Clementine v. Board of Civil Service CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

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