Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Bd. of Edn.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1926No. 19513PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The single question involved in this case is whether an action in mandamus is a chancery case, and hence appealable to the Court of Appeals within the provisions of Section 6, Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution, that:

"The Courts of Appeals shall have original jurisdiction inquo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition andprocedendo, and appellate jurisdiction in the trial of chancery cases * * *."

Granting that the action in mandamus, as instituted, conformed to the requirements of Section 12224, General Code, the action has to constitute a chancery case in order that the appeal may…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Riggs v. Johnson CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1868
  2. Heine v. Levee CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  3. Smith v. Bourbon CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  4. State, ex rel. Beard v. JacksonIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Woods v. HydeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Habe v. City of South EuclidOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State Ex Rel. Sneary v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. State Ex Rel. Kay v. Board of ElectionsOhio Court of Appeals · 1960
  4. State ex rel. Brockler v. O'MalleyOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. State ex rel. Katz v. WalterOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

1 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