Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Freeman v. Hayes

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1982No. 81-806PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This court has consistently held that “[i]n order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Civ. R. 12 [B] [6]), it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery.” O’Brien v. University Community Tenants Union (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 242. Also, in considering such motion, the court must assume the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint. See Royce v. Smith (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 106.

*345Applying these principles to the complaint for a writ of mandamus, we find no…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Royce v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State ex rel. Annable v. StokesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  4. State ex rel. Halak v. CebulaOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  5. State ex rel. Van Curen v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. E. Cleveland Fire Fighters' Assn., Local 500, IAFF v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. East Cleveland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 500 v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Esrati v. FoleyOhio Supreme Court · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API