State ex rel. Cody v. Toner
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtClifford F. Brown, J.
It is well-settled that in order for a writ of mandamus to issue, the relators must show: “ ‘(1) that they have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and (3) that relators have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.’ ” State, ex rel. Akron Fire Fighters, v. Akron (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 448, 450 [8 O.O.3d 443]; State, ex rel. Harris, v. Rhodes (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 41, 42 [8 O.O.3d 36].
The court of appeals held that relator herein has an adequate remedy in *23the ordinary course of the law by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Little v. StreaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State ex rel. Heller v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State ex rel. Harris v. RhodesOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- State ex rel. Butler v. DemisOhio Supreme Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- State ex rel. Howard v. FerreriOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Dayton Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 44 v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- State ex rel. Asberry v. PayneOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Liberty Mills, Inc. v. LockerOhio Supreme Court · 1986
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.