State ex rel. Hensley v. Nowak
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Relators ask for a writ of mandamus “directing * * * [respondents] to comply with this Court’s holding in State v. VFW Post 3562 * * *.” However, what relators want is to prevent respondents from engaging in administrative searches in violation of VFW Post 3562.
“A writ of mandamus compels action or commands the performance of a duty, while a decree of injunction ordinarily restrains or forbids the performance of a specified act.” State, ex rel. Smith, v. Indus. Comm. (1942), 139 Ohio St. 303, 22 O.O. 349, 39 N.E. 2d 838, paragraph two of the syllabus, quoted in Assn. for the Defense of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Ass'n for Defense of Washington Local School District v. KigerOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1942
- State v. ArringtonOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Commercial Savings Bank v. Wyandot County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Karmasu v. TateOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.