Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Baran v. Fuerst
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 14, 1992No. 91-1597PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Baran was removed from his position contrary to law and therefore entitled to reinstatement by mandamus.
It is established law in Ohio that a member of the classified civil service has the right to reinstatement and back pay by way of mandamus when his or her removal is contrary to the provisions of what is now R.C. 124.34. See State ex rel. Bay v. Witter (1924), 110 Ohio St. 216, 143 N.E. 556; and State ex rel. Brittain v. Ohio Bd. of Agriculture (1917), 95 Ohio St. 276, 116 N.E. 459.
Fuerst alleges that mandamus relief is not available here…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Martin v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- State Ex Rel. Bay v. WitterOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- State ex rel. Colangelo v. McFaulOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State ex rel. Hamlin v. CollinsOhio Supreme Court · 1981
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Carlton v. DavissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Hall v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Adams v. Crawford Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 3-07-19 (12-26-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.