Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1999No. 98-1040PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Mandamus will not issue where the relator has a plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. For this reason, the failure to pursue an adequate *238administrative remedy bars mandamus relief. State ex rel. Reeves v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 212, 559 N.E.2d 1311.

Under R.C. 4123.511(B)(1), claimant could have appealed the bureau’s order to a commission district hearing officer. The bureau’s order, moreover, informed claimant, in highlighted language, of his right and responsibility to appeal if he was dissatisfied…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Reeves v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Buckley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API