Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Tablack

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1999No. 99-261PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

Campbell and Sebring assert that the court of appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus because the board did not establish any of the requirements for issuance of the writ. In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the board had to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the auditor and treasurer to provide this relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to compel them to perform the requested acts. State ex rel. Fattlar v. Boyle (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 698 N.E.2d 987, 988.

Regarding the first two…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Ohio Ex Rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Desenco, Inc. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Fenske v. McGovernOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State ex rel. BSW Development Group v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State ex rel. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State ex rel. Ohio General Assembly v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State ex rel. Webb v. BlissOhio Supreme Court · 2003

13 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