Legal Opinion

In re Furnishings & Equipment for the Judge, Courtroom & Personnel for Courtroom Two

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1981No. 80-1032PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPaul W. Brown, J.

The Court of Appeals held that mandamus is the only proper remedy by which a judge can compel a board of county commissioners to purchase furnishings and equipment necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the court. Such a conclusion is incorrect. This court has repeatedly held that when a board of county commissioners refuses to appropriate funds or provide quarters and equipment reasonably requested by the court, a judge may seek to enforce his order by way of mandamus or by proceedings in contempt. In re Appropriation for 1979 (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d *42999, 100; State, ex rel.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Johnston v. TaulbeeOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State ex rel. Foster v. WittenbergOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Zangerle v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  4. City of Cleveland v. WhipkeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
  5. State ex rel. Edwards v. MurrayOhio Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. SteffenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. SteffenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
  5. State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000

8 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