Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Levin v. Schremp

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1995No. 95-341PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Per curiam

Levin asserts in his first proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in granting Schremp’s motioncfior summary judgment and denying his request for a writ of mandamus on the basis that Levin possesses an adequate remedy at law.

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Levin had to establish that he has a clear legal right to removal of the enclosure of Day Ditch, that Schremp has a clear legal duty to remove the enclosure, and that Levin has no adequate remedy at law. In addition, Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment is granted, it must be determined that (1) no…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Carter v. SchottenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Levin v. City of Sheffield LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Fenske v. McGovernOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Doud v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1949

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin County Board of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. The V Cos. v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2008

24 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