State ex rel. Caspar v. City of Dayton

Conceding the statute of limitations bar, appellants challenge the court of appeals’ decision because it did not grant relief for the entire six-year period prior to their complaint, and because it did not allow them attorney fees. Dayton urges affirmation of the court of appeals’ application of R.C. 4117.10(A). However, pursuant to its cross-appeal, Dayton also attacks the court’s decision with respect to the availability of an adequate remedy and laches.

In order for a writ of mandamus to issue, we must find that Dayton is under a clear legal duty to perform the act requested by appellants,…