Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Daoust v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1977No. 77-1386PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relators must show (1) that they have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and (3) that relators have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. National City Bank, v, Bd. of Education (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 81, 84.

Respondent admits that the duties he is refusing to perform are mandatory and ministerial. Respondent alleges that he is not, however, obligated to do what may, in his judgment, be declared void at a later time. With…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. National City Bank v. Board of Education of Cleveland City School DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. State Ex Rel. Shriver v. HayesOhio Supreme Court · 1947

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mary Lankford, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk v. Paul Rock, Dari Quirk, & Ernest KawaWyoming Supreme Court · 2013
  2. In re Election of November 6, 1990 for the Office of Attorney GeneralOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. In re Contested Election of November 2, 1993 Concerning Issue No. 9, Referendum of Ordinance No. 137-92Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Byrd v. Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State ex rel. Mackey v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 2005

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