Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Harrell v. Board of Education

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1989No. Nos. 88-1501 and 88-1502PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

For a writ of mandamus to issue, a court must find that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that the respondent is under a corresponding clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that relator has no plain and adequate *58remedy at law. Freshour v. Radcliff (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 181, 519 N.E. 2d 395; State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E. 2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus. For the following reasons, we find that appellees Harrell and Celigoj have each sustained their burdens of proof on these…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. BaconOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Bernardini v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State ex rel. Fenske v. McGovernOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State Ex Rel. Jones v. FarrarOhio Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Pickaway County Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. CordrayOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. BellmanOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. City of North Canton v. City of CantonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. City of East Liverpool v. Columbiana County Budget CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007

9 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