Legal Opinion

In re Estate of Davis

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1996No. 96-991PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant claims that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. A writ of mandamus will not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. Hunter v. Certain Judges of Akron Mun. Court (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 45, 46, 641 N.E.2d 722, 723.

All of the probate court orders challenged by appellant in his mandamus action could have been or can still be challenged by appeal. The fact that appeal is no longer available because of appellant’s failure to file a timely appeal does not render the remedy inadequate. See State…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Newton v. Court of ClaimsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Cartmell v. DorrianOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State ex rel. Schneider v. Board of Education of North Olmsted City School DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State ex rel. Hunter v. Certain Judges of Akron Municipal CourtOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Gaydosh v. City of TwinsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State ex rel. Gaydosh v. TwinsburgOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State ex rel. Pontillo v. Public Employees Retirement System BoardOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State ex rel. Toledo Metro Federal Credit Union v. Ohio Civil Rights CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. Toledo Metro Fed. Credit Union v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

5 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