State Ex Rel. Sidell v. Cole
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
The first contention of the respondents is that under the facts alleged the relators have a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from the decision of the civil service commission and therefore are not entitled to the unusual relief of a writ of mandamus.
Section 12287, General Code, contains the following prohibition with reference to a writ of mandamus:
“The writ must not be issued in a case where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. ’ ’
The respondents rely upon the provisions of Section 486-17a, which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gannon v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 1945
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mahoney v. City of BereaOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
- Kluth v. AndrusOhio Supreme Court · 1952
- State ex rel. Harris v. HaynesOhio Supreme Court · 1952
- State ex rel. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1954
- State ex rel. Ristine v. HainesOhio Supreme Court · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.