State ex rel. Temke v. Outcalt
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Ninety-four years ago, this court enunciated a well-settled rule that in a mandamus proceeding to compel an officer to perform an act which it is claimed the law enjoins upon him as a duty, all the facts necessary to put him in default must be demonstrated. State v. Cappeller (1883), 39 Ohio St. 455, 460 (quoting Cincinnati College v. La Rue [1872], 22 Ohio St. 469). The court has reaffirmed this principle over the years. Ohio, ex rel. v. Moore (1883), 39 Ohio St. 486, 487 (citing La Rue and Cappeller); Dye v. State, ex rel. Davis (1906), 73 Ohio St. 231, 241, 76 N. E. 829 (quoting La Rue).…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Myers v. ChiaramonteOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Baker v. HanefeldOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- State Ex Rel. Gulf Refining Co. v. DeFranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
3Cited by16 opinions
- State ex rel. Mazzaro v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Hattie v. GoldhardtOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State Ex Rel. Connole v. Cleveland Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges of the Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.