State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. Calandra
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant, in its first proposition of law, asserts that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is proper in the instant cause, since an appeal to the Court of Appeals does not provide for a “plain and adequate” remedy in the ordinary course of the law as required by R. C. 2731.05.
We find appellant’s assertion unpersuasive and hold that appellant had a plain and adequate remedy.
Appellant claims that the remedy of appeal is not plain because it is extremely doubtful whether an appeal is avaüable to the prosecution in a case of failure to impose a mandatory sentence.
R. C. 2945.67(A) reads, in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bozza v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- In Re BonnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- State ex rel. Woodbury v. SpitlerOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- State ex rel. Marshall v. KellerOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- State ex rel. Wargo v. PriceOhio Supreme Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Center, Inc. v. Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Leis v. KraftOhio Supreme Court · 1984
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.