Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Freeman v. Valentine

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1971No. 70-690PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of an act which is clearly enjoined by law upon a respondent. Here, the respondent did not have possession of the property which relator sought to have returned to him by this action in mandamus.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., SchneideR, Herbert, Duncan, Corrigan, Steen and Leach, JJ., concur.

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Sawyer v. O'ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. State ex rel. Leis v. GusweilerOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State, Ex Rel. Ohio Motorists Assn. v. MastenOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. State ex rel. Tulley v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  5. State ex rel. Union Twp. v. Union Twp. Professional Firefighters, IAFF Loc. 3412Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014