Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Russell v. Duncan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 1992No. 91-2175PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “Mandamus will not lie to enforce a private right against a private person.” State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 40 O.O.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, paragraph eight of the syllabus. Nor will the writ issue when the relator has an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O.3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81.

The court of appeals correctly held that the relationship between the bank and appellant was that of debtor and creditor, a contractual undertaking. See Speroff v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. BaconOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Cincinnati Insurance v. First National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Speroff v. First-Central Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1948

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Harris v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. City of King City v. Community Bank of CentralCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. State ex rel. Longacre v. Penton Publishing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State Ex Rel. Voleck v. Village of Powhatan PointOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State ex rel. Jackson v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1998

13 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