Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Martin v. Corrigan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1986No. 85-1615PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The sole question before this court is whether an attorney appointed by the court to represent an indigent defendant, who performs legal services for that defendant but is later removed by the court from the case, has a clear legal right to attorney fees. For the following reasons we find that appellant has effectively demonstrated his right to a writ of mandamus compelling payment of attorney fees in this case.

R.C. 2941.51, which governs payment of assigned counsel, stated in pertinent part:

“Counsel assigned to a case * * * shall be paid for their services by the county, and shall receive…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Wood v. ChristiansenOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hodges v. TaftOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. Village of Botkins v. LawsOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. LuffOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. Dapice v. StickrathOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Botkins v. LawsOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3 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