Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Bowman v. Board of Commrs.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 11, 1931No. 22557PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.

The first matter to challenge onr attention is the claim of the defendants that relator has mistaken his remedy and that mandamus does not lie, because there is an adequate remedy at law. The single authority cited in support of that claim is Davenport v. County of Dodge, 105 U. S., 237, 26 L. Ed., 1018. Chief Justice Waite, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, declared as a rule of federal procedure that a judgment at law is necessary to support the writ of mandamus to enforce the levy and collection of taxes to pay public improvement bonds issued by the board of county…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Jacobson v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  3. Illinois Central Railroad v. DecaturSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Tari v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Brodhead v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. American Co. v. City of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Ruther v. KaiserOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999

22 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