Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Lee v. Montgomery

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 2000No. 99-1760PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Lee asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested writ of mandamus. Lee’s preeminent claim is for a writ of mandamus to compel the Attorney General to “take such action as is necessary * * * to resolve the matter of identifying the rest of the members of the ‘class of beneficiaries’ ” of the charitable trust. Lee contends that the Attorney General has a clear legal duty to bring an action to define the other beneficiaries of the trust besides Miami University. Lee further contends that the Attorney General has a clear legal duty to move to vacate the probate court judgment…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin County Board of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist Church v. MeagherOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Sampson v. ParrottOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. In re the Trust U/W of BrookeOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Department of LawOhio Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Husted v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State Ex Rel. Widmar v. Mohney, 2007-G-2776 (3-7-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Ordinance No. 3543-00 v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. SimmersOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. State ex rel. Lee v. MontgomeryOhio Supreme Court · 2000

6 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