Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 24, 1994No. Nos. 94-603, 94-604 and 94-670PublishedCited by 107 opinions
1Per curiam
In order to be entitled to the writs of mandamus he requested, Carter had to establish that he possesses a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested acts, and that Carter has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Botkins *91v. Laws (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 383, 632 N.E.2d 897; State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O.3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus.
The court of appeals’ dismissal of Carter’s mandamus actions was premised solely upon its determination that…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bounds v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Robert Dale Strickler v. Gary Waters, Sheriff Commonwealth of Virginia City of Portsmouth Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Kulwicki v. DawsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Judson Warren White v. C.M. White, Warden A v. Dodrill, Commissioner of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- State v. LongOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaulOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Kreps v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Cook v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- Guillory v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr., 07ap-861 (5-8-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.