Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Matheis v. Russo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1990No. 89-967PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

For a writ of mandamus to issue, Matheis must establish that she has a clear legal right to the relief sought, that Russo is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that she has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Liberty Mills, Inc., v. Locker (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 102, 22 OBR 136, 488 N.E. 2d 883; R.C. 2731.05. Matheis argues that R.C. 5309.45 requires Russo to, in effect, re-register title to the Maple Heights property in her name, and that the court of appeals erred by not recognizing this duty and Matheis’ right to its…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. Liberty Mills, Inc. v. LockerOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State ex rel. Case v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State Ex Rel. Bassichis v. ZangerleOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. State ex rel. Pistillo v. City of Shaker HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 1971

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Citizens for Fair Taxation v. Board of Lucas County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. IUOE v. ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API