Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Manson v. Morris

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1993No. 92-2179PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Per curiam

For the following reasons we grant respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Manson’s request for a writ of mandamus is denied.

Manson argues that CCI’s visiting office and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction denied him Addy’s visitation because she was a former employee of the department and that the denial was unconstitutional.

Three requirements must be met to establish a right to a writ of mandamus: that relator have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent have a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and that relator have no plain and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Kentucky Department of Corrections v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Bellamy v. BradleyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
  4. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Mootispaw v. EcksteinOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Mootispaw v. EcksteinOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State ex rel. Village of Botkins v. LawsOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State ex rel. McMaster v. School Employees Retirement SystemOhio Supreme Court · 1994

25 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