Legal Opinion

State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. Calandra

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1980No. 79-1242PublishedCited by 26 opinions

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

  1. Bozza v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. In Re BonnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. State ex rel. Woodbury v. SpitlerOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. State ex rel. Marshall v. KellerOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  5. State ex rel. Wargo v. PriceOhio Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Center, Inc. v. Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State ex rel. Leis v. KraftOhio Supreme Court · 1984

21 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