Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Temke v. Outcalt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1977No. 76-655PublishedCited by 16 opinions

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

  1. State ex rel. Myers v. ChiaramonteOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State Ex Rel. Baker v. HanefeldOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  3. State Ex Rel. Gulf Refining Co. v. DeFranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1950

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Mazzaro v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State ex rel. Hattie v. GoldhardtOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State Ex Rel. Connole v. Cleveland Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges of the Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1990

11 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