Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Lightfield v. Village of Indian Hill

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1994No. 93-227PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

The main issue before this court is whether the Indian Hill Charter expressly conflicts with R.C. 124.44 regarding police promotions such that it supersedes R.C. 124.44. For the following reasons, we answer “no” and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, the relator is required to prove that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent has a clear legal duty to perform the act, and that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Westchester…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. BaconOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State ex rel. Bardo v. City of LyndhurstOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. Habe v. City of South EuclidOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeneyOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. Fenley v. KygerOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State ex rel. Meyers v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State Ex Rel. Murray v. Scioto County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State ex rel. Hipp v. City of North CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1996

15 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