State ex rel. Bargar v. Ross
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
E. C. 2731.05 provides that “[t]he writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” In this cause, appellant has exhausted his “plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law” and attempts to substitute an action in mandamus for an otherwise barred second appeal.
This court stated in State, ex rel. Shively, v. Nicholas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 179, at page 181 that: “One remedy at law is the right of appeal. * * * [T]he relatrix did avail herself of this remedy * * *. The fact that the relatrix was unsuccessful in that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State Ex Rel. Shively v. NicholasOhio Supreme Court · 1949
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagleOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Hunt v. Westlake City School District Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- State ex rel. Davies v. City of ElyriaOhio Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.