In re Furnishings & Equipment for the Judge, Courtroom & Personnel for Courtroom Two
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- State ex rel. Johnston v. TaulbeeOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Foster v. WittenbergOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- Zangerle v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- City of Cleveland v. WhipkeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
- State ex rel. Edwards v. MurrayOhio Supreme Court · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. SteffenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. SteffenOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.